Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Procurement

Ms. Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with how many United Kingdom companies his Department was involved in procurement contracts in 1992.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My Department was involved in procurement contracts with some 7,000 United Kingdom companies in 1992. That figure excludes minor contracts placed by local establishments, details of which are not held centrally.

Ms. Eagle: Is it not the case that the decline in procurement volume due to "Options for Change" has led directly to the loss of 78,900 jobs since 1990, 900 of which were at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead which is currently facing closure? Will the Minister now pledge Government support for the creation of a defence diversification strategy in order to help convert those jobs to civil use, keep Cammell Laird open and ensure that we do not lose skills which are important to the British economy?

Mr. Aitken: I regret the loss of any defence jobs. The number of lost jobs since 1990 is approximately 40,000, considerably lower than the figure given by the hon. Lady. Like the hon. Lady, I lament the closure of Cammell Laird in her constituency because it has played a proud role in the history of British shipbuilding. However, it is not right for the Government to invent a diversification strategy. The owner of Cammell Laird, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, is already diversifying into areas such as oil rig technology. Defence diversification is best left to companies, not Government quangos.

Mr. Trotter: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting Swan Hunter last week. His sympathetic and understanding remarks were well received by the representatives of the work force whom he met there. They were encouraged by his statement that the helicopter carrier had not been cancelled and that the tendering process was continuing in good faith. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he was impressed by what he saw of the management-work force team and the quality of their work on the four Royal Navy ships being built in the yard?

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I appreciated the chance to visit Swan Hunter in his good

company. I can confirm that I was extremely impressed by the quality of the workmanship and the dedication of the work force. The landing platform helicopter project is still in our long-term costing. It is being reviewed in the light of defence resources, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the messages that he and the Swan Hunter work force gave me have been faithfully passed on throughout Whitehall.

Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware of the importance to many defence contractors of the batch 2 Trafalgar order? Can he confirm that that order remains part of the Government's programme and that it is his intention to replace all the Swiftsure class with the new batch 2 Trafalgars?

Mr. Aitken: I can confirm that the batch 2 Trafalgar project is in the long-term costing. All such projects depend on the availability of future defence resources, but I can confirm that it is in the programme. I fully understand its importance to the hon. Gentleman and to his constituents at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited. VSEL has recently executed a design study contract which we are now studying in considering the way forward.

Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend take the time to consider the effectiveness of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system—DROPS—the battlefield ammunition resupply carrier, during the Gulf conflict, which is a useful and essential piece of kit? Will he bear in mind the need for flexibility in his Department as the chill winds of recession are banging around the country and consider the long-term future of that particular carrier which is built in Shrewsbury and whose future may be in jeopardy?

Mr. Aitken: A question about DROPS appears later on the Order Paper. The DROPS medium ability vehicle that entered service with the British Army in 1990 has put up an impressive performance, especially in the Gulf campaign. Overseas customers have been particularly impressed and are interested in its progress.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister clear up a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie? What is he up to in respect of the Upholder class submarines? Will they be sold to Canada? Do we not need diesel submarines any more? Will they be sold at their full cost of £800 million? Will the receipts be used for the helicopter carrier? Is that not another illustration of the muddle and confusion at the Ministry of Defence, which has no defence strategy because there has been no defence review?

Mr. Aitken: I think that my reply should be, elementary my dear Hercule Poirot. That project, like many others in the long-term costing, is currently under consideration by Ministers, and no decisions have been taken.

Mr. Viggers: Is it not a fact that the moderates on the Labour Benches are a minority in their party—a party which consistently votes at its annual conference to cut defence expenditure? Should not those who really believe in defence and procurement jobs place their trust in the party that puts defence at the top of its priorities?

Hon. Members: Say no.

Mr. Aitken: I am choosing my words with care, because I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who highlights the continuing ambivalence and absurdity of the


Labour party, which calls for more jobs and orders and for a stronger defence policy in Westminster, but then, at its annual conference, votes for cuts of £6 billion in the defence budget. That is the theatre of the absurd, and it fools nobody ultimately.

Strategic Review

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will institute a full strategic review of Britain's current defence requirements.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We continue to keep our defence policy as a whole under review, both with regard to the strategic situation and in respect of specific commitments.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for a serious review of Britain's defence expenditure, which now totals more than £23 billion a year? Should not we cancel the nuclear missile programme and consign all nuclear missiles back to base as part of a programme of worldwide disarmament? Should not we try to cut conventional expenditure to at least the European average, which would save £6 billion a year? Should not we also ensure that skilled workers who are at present manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and other forms of armaments are put to making socially useful products, including materials for the health service and housing industry—and recognise that world peace is best achieved by people working for peace rather than by arming themselves for war?

Mr. Rifkind: It is good to hear the legitimate voice of the Labour party speaking without fear or favour, representing the views of the Labour party conference, and no doubt putting in even more eloquent form the words that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would like to say but dare not.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend re-examine the respective benefits of a static, costly and inflexible presence on the central front in Germany— subsidising in effect German jobs—as against the flexibility, mobility and fire power of the landing platform helicopter assault carrier, which can be sent anywhere in the world when required, either to preserve the peace or to intervene in case of war? Surely the benefits are to be found with the latter rather than the former.

Mr. Rifkind: We certainly recognise that priorities have changed, which is why the strength of the British Army of the Rhine, for example, is to be reduced from 60,000 men to 23,000 men, and the reason for a 50 per cent. reduction in our dual capable aircraft and other changes of that kind. My hon. Friend's general proposition is already well recognised and is built in to the plans and programmes that we currently have available.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the Secretary of State owe it to his own reputation, if not to the House, to show a little more intellectual rigour in the matter of a defence review? At a time when resources are falling, how will we be able properly to match commitments to resources unless there is a robust analysis of our commitments or there is likely to be? When the Chief Secretary to the

Treasury told the House a few weeks ago that it should be willing to think the unthinkable, did not that apply to defence as much as to health?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course it is desirable to look rigorously at each and every element of our defence policy. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman's yearning for a formal defence review appears to be based on the belief that such a review would provide a once-and-for-all assessment of our defence needs that would attract unanimous support. In fact, controversy would remain, many people would dismiss the review's conclusions as out of date as soon as the print had dried on the paper, and we should be left only with a considerable increase in uncertainty and instability.
Let me emphasise to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, although we must examine specific components on a continuing basis, the world changes from year to year. The idea that a defence review would somehow answer all the problems in a simple and straightforward way is naive and unrealistic.

Mr. Bill Walker: When conducting his regular on-going reviews, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, below a certain level, any outfit or organisation ceases to have a critical mass? Will he remember that the Royal Air Force has already carried out a one third reduction in its all-weather air defence capability and a 38 per cent. reduction in its long-range strike capability? Even in the current changing circumstances, it should not be a candidate for further reductions which are likely to cause it to fall below the level that will make it viable in future.

Mr. Rifkind: I properly attach great importance to the needs of the RAF. My hon. Friend should be reassured by the news that the RAF's single most important project —the Eurofighter 2000—is to continue, thus ensuring that the RAF will be able to cope with the responsibilities imposed on it for generations to come.

Dr. David Clark: In view of the story emanating from the Secretary of State's Department last week that the Royal Marines are to lose their landing capabilities, and this week's story that the Parachute Regiment would lose its parachutes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what daft scheme he has cooked up for this week? Has he thought how much money he could save by depriving the RAF of aircraft? Does not all the nonsense emanating from his Department prove our point about the need for a full-scale strategic defence review, so that the shape of British defence spending may actually match our defence needs?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is not at his most impressive when he relies on unattributed press rumours for his questions. He is well aware that those who call for formal defence reviews normally do so because they are scared of commiting themselves to any individual defence policy.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, in January 1992, an Opposition Treasury spokesman said that defence cuts could arguably become the North sea oil of the 1990s? Does not that comment put in context many of the current criticisms—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows better than to question a Minister about policy for which he has no responsibility.

Trident

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government now intend to make a statement on the award of the Trident contract.

Mr. Aitken: We will announce our proposals for future refitting arrangements— including those for Trident—as soon as possible, but I do not expect it to be until after the Easter recess.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that, as a west country Liberal Democrat, I believe that Devonport has put forward the best bid. The real problem, however, is the extraordinary series of delays in the making of the announcement. Families—both those throughout Devon and Cornwall, who depend on Devonport, and those in Scotland, who depend on Rosyth —are being forced to wait with increasing uncertainty about their future. That has caused them all great difficulties. Can the Minister be a little more specific about when those people can expect a decision, and will he explain the series of delays that have taken place so far?

Mr. Aitken: I have sympathy for dockyard employees and their families: I know that the uncertainty is causing them concern. None the less, I think it a little churlish of the hon. Gentleman not to accept that a great deal of uncertainty was lifted by my right hon. and learned Friend's written answer on 9 February, when he made it clear that we were now planning to continue with two royal dockyards. We are therefore no longer in a life-or-death situation at either Devonport or Rosyth.
As for the timing of the announcement, we hope to be able to make it as soon as possible after the Easter recess. The first reason for the delays that have taken place so far is the need for us to be sure that we can accept the figures in the proposals as sound and certain, on behalf of the taxpayer. Secondly, new information has been coming in, not least from the dockyard managing companies themselves, and that new information has taken extra time to evaluate.

Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware, none the less, that despite the assurances given some weeks ago that both dockyards would remain open, there is genuine concern in Plymouth and the far south-west about the delay? There is recognition that nuclear work is the jewel in the crown. Can my hon. Friend therefore assure me that this decision will be made as soon as is humanly possible? Is my hon. Friend further aware—[Interruption.] Finally, is my hon. Friend aware that the Liberal Democrats' defence policy would scrap Trident and that there would be no choice—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question for which, again, the Minister has no responsibility. The Minister will answer only the first part of that question.

Mr. Aitken: It is perfectly fair for my hon. Friend to point out that a Liberal Government, if we were ever to have one, would have no Trident submarines to refit at all. Therefore, this is a highly academic question.
To answer my hon. Friend's principal point, I can confirm that we hope to make the announcement as soon as is humanly possible after the Easter recess.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister comment on reports that the United States is proposing to limit production of Trident missiles and that a Bill is already before Congress? Would that not increase enormously the unit cost, including the cost to Britain? The reports talk of a figure of £200 million extra. Would not that be an even greater waste of British taxpayers' money?

Mr. Aitken: I have to give the hon. Gentleman some news which I am sorry to say he will probably find disappointing—that he should not believe all that he reads in the morning newspapers. We have long been aware of the fact that the United States proposes to reduce the annual production rate of Trident D5 missiles. We are confident that there is no risk of a significant variation in United Kingdom missile costs as a result.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the sea trials of the Trident submarine.

Mr. Aitken: The United Kingdom's first Trident submarine, Vanguard, completed her contractor's sea trials in January. The trials were highly successful, with all major systems and equipments performing well. This was a particularly impressive achievement for the first of a new class.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that that answer will he warmly welcomed by all those who recognise that the nuclear deterrent has kept the peace of the world for over 45 years? Does he also accept that that would not have happened if he had listened to the Labour party and to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) when he was a member of CND?

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's trenchant support of the Trident programme which has been an enduring feature of our debates and of Question Time for many years. I agree entirely that we need an absolutely first-class independent nuclear deterrent system to take us ahead for the next 30 years. I agree, too, that the Conservative party is the only party which is able to provide such a system, in terms of its political will and commitment.

Mr. Cryer: What does the Minister say to people who argue that countries such as Canada, for example, will neither manufacture nor deploy nuclear weapons? Canada, under a Conservative Prime Minister and Government, and 150 other nations take the same view and have signed a solemn, international obligation to maintain a nuclear-free area. Does not what the Minister has said prejudice that treaty? Is it not terrible that a Minister can stand up at the Dispatch Box to support, to the cheers of his Back Benchers, a nuclear weapons system that involves mass extermination on an unprecedented scale? Is it not immoral for anyone to support such a policy?

Mr. Aitken: There are different views of morality from that held by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he was referring, in his rather sweeping assertions earlier, to the non-proliferation treaty and, in particular, to article 6. We accept that we must undertake to pursue negotiations on the cessation of the nuclear arms race in good faith and as early as possible, but we think that disarmament can be achieved only step by step in verifiable stages. We do not think that the time is right, in the present atmosphere of


strategic uncertainty, either to abandon our nuclear weapons or even to abandon the testing that keeps them safe and credible.

EH101 Helicopter

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress with the development of the EH101 helicopter and its variants.

Mr. Aitken: The collaborative development with Italy of the EH101 aircraft is progressing well.

Mr. Nicholson: Despite the blase remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), my hon. Friend will be aware that many people in the south-west are concerned about employment in defence industries. He will also be aware that a number of my constituents work at Westland in Yeovil. The Government have spent £1·4 billion on developing the EH101 and have already ordered 44 Merlins for the Royal Navy, so why should there be a delay in placing the contracts for the 25 utility support helicopters for the Royal Air Force when the money for those was allocated by the former Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Younger, in 1987?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's pride in the EH101 helicopter and its variants, and in the craftsmanship and skill achieved at Westland, in his constituency—or rather, where many of his constituents work—is entirely justified. But his impatience, although understandable, is not entirely justified, in view of the ministerial duty to achieve value for money on such a massive procurement project. The right course is to have a fair competition, and we intend to hold one as soon as possible for Britain's support helicopter requirements.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister recall a previous Conservative Secretary of State announcing to the House on 9 April 1987 that the Government intended to order 25 utility EH101 helicopters? In view of the desperate and dire shortage of helicopters in our armed forces, what has happened to that order?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise how much the world and the strategic environment has changed since 1987. For helicopters alone, we face a wider spread of less predictable scenarios, in terms of the distance that troops may have to cover, the equipment that they will carry, the terrain over which they will have to fly, and the nature and intensity of the air defence threat that they may face. It would be remiss of us not to take account of those changes in reassessing our support helicopter requirement. I am sorry that that has taken rather a long time.

United Nations Commitments

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary for Defence to discuss international obligations arising from United Nations commitments.

Mr. Rifkind: I expect to meet Les Aspin, the United States Defence Secretary, at the meeting between NATO Defence Ministers and those of the co-operation partners on 29 March. We will take this opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues.

Sir Michael Neubert: If the rather improbable patchwork quilt of a peace plan for Bosnia finds acceptance with all parties, will Her Majesty's Government contribute a contingent of troops to ensure its enforcement? Would it not be regrettable if one consequence of that were a further reduction in the number of Territorial Army battalions, and in our Reserve forces generally?

Mr. Rifkind: If a ceasefire is agreed between the various warring parties in Bosnia, the first and crucial test will be whether it is a genuine ceasefire, respected by the various factions on the ground. We have seen ceasefires in the past which have not in practice turned out to represent any change in circumstances.
The future of TA battalions is an important issue that must be considered on its merits. I assure my hon. Friend that any thoughts on that matter will be given the most careful consideration, because of the importance that we attach to the Reserves.

Mr. Byers: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in order to meet our international obligations within the United Nations, we shall need to maintain our amphibious capability and does he recognise that the helicopter carrier will have a vital role to play in ensuring that we can do so? Does he agree that that carrier, and the order for it, is vital not only for our future defence needs but to secure thousands of badly needed jobs in areas of high unemployment such as Tyneside?

Mr. Rifkind: We have an amphibious capability already, without the helicopter carrier; the question is whether a carrier would provide a viable improvement in that capability. It is an expensive item and it is at present in the programme. We are considering that and other issues in the context of the overall resources available to the Ministry of Defence.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is not it a fact that in fulfilling United Nations commitments in Bosnia, British forces have stripped themselves of the last of their useful utility helicopters? We are desperately short of such helicopters, as the Select Committee on Defence has pointed out. Am I to understand from the previous answer that the Government are considering either the 23-year-old Chinook or the 30-year-old Puma designs as alternatives to the modern and up-to-date EH101?

Mr. Rifkind: We recognise that the helicopter is a most important and essential requirement for the armed forces in the 1990s and I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise that for the Army and other services to carry out their responsibilities, it is important that they should be provided with the number and type of helicopters necessary to deal with the likely challenges that they will face in the years to come.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to distance himself from the statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations yesterday—that he will ask the United Nations to enforce a settlement if there is no peace settlement in Bosnia fairly soon—is not an urgent review of United States and United Kingdom defence requirements necessary?

Mr. Rifkind: I am very willing to distance myself from any statement that suggests that international forces, including those of the United Kingdom, should be used in


a combat role to enforce peace in Bosnia. We are prepared to give serious consideration to the help that we could give if a genuine ceasefire were delivered on the ground in Bosnia, but any proposals for a combat role do not accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the absence of a suitable command structure in the United Nations for the delivery of military and humanitarian missions throughout the world, NATO is uniquely well equipped to carry on its excellent work as a force for good in the world and to organise the delivery of such future missions?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. NATO is an institution and an organisation which has tremendous experience of co-operation between countries that are part of the alliance. It has very valuable assets which can be used in co-operation with the international community and I believe that it should always be willing to consider seriously requests for its assets to be made available, when the interests of international peace and stability could be advanced in that way.

Dr. Reid: Despite whatever differences we may have, all parties in the House have learnt one thing from our debates on defence—that any rational defence policy must be based on a match between resources and commitments. Is not it a sad fact that when the Secretary of State meets the United States Defence Secretary, he will have to explain to him, among other things, the fact that Britain, as a permanent member of the Security Council, was unable to deploy ground troops as part of the United Nations relief operation in Somalia? Is not it clear to the Secretary of State that our armed forces, especially the infantry, are still too overstretched? Does not he see that as an indictment of his presidency over the Ministry of Defence and of the way in which the non-review has been conducted?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not need to give any such explanation. The decision not to send ground forces to Somalia was not taken because of the absence of such forces. We could have sent a battalion if we had thought it appropriate. We decided that the best contribution that we could make to Somalia was with RAF Hercules. Our judgment was similar to that of the United States, which decided not to send ground forces to Bosnia—not because they did not have any such forces, but because they believed that there were other ways in which they could make a contribution.

NATO

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with the United States Defence Secretary about out-of-area commitments by NATO.

Mr. Rifkind: As I said a few moments ago, I hope to meet Mr. Aspin shortly.

Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are still considerable uncertainties, on the fringe and out of area of NATO, especially in the Balkans, the Gulf and the southern areas of the Commonwealth of Independent States? In those circumstances is not it vital that NATO and the Western European Union should

work closely together, in case they need to be used to resolve or calm down those problems and should not we work closely with the French on such matters, through an integrated command structure, whoever might be the commanding officer?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that it is desirable that NATO and the WEU should work closely together. However, we should work towards a situation in which one or other of those organisations makes a contribution in respect of the international community. I hope that we shall not have a repetition of the situation that occurred in the Adriatric, where both organisations were making provision simultaneously. That was an inadequate and unfortunate use of scarce resources of all the countries concerned.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: In an earlier answer to a Labour Member on out-of-area commitments, the Secretary of State seemed to disagree with an answer given previously by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to a Conservative Member, in respect of landing platform helicopter procurement. The Minister of State confirmed that the vessel has been reinstated in his Department's long-term costings. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will be ordered on time this autumn?

Mr. Rifkind: The proposal for a landing platform helicopter was never taken out of the programe. My hon. Friend and I have both said to the House, as we have done on previous occasions, that that project, with a whole range of others, has to be considered in the context of the long-term costings that we normally carry out at this time of the year.

Mr. Dickens: With the British armed forces dispersed throughout the world to meet our obligations under NATO and the United Nations, is not it clear to the House and the country that it is sheer common sense to have the Trident submarine cruising beneath the oceans of the world, ready to strike any aggressor towards the United Kingdom? Why do the Opposition, time and again, run down our defences? The Conservatives are the only party which would defend the realm.

Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed the case that the stalwart defence policy that Conservative Governments have pursued over the years, despite the bitter opposition of the Labour party, has made an important contribution to the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the end of the cold war and the resulting enhanced security for the people of this island.

British Forces (Germany)

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his estimates of the total annual cost of British forces in Germany for each year from 1990 to 1995 and the proportion of that covered by offsetting arrangements.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): The total cost of the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany for 1991–92 was £1,966 million and our estimates for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are £1,706 million and £1,543 million respectively. As a result of changes in budgetary procedures, there is no directly comparable figure for 1989–90 or 1990–91. While no direct offset payments have been made by the Federal Republic of


Germany since 1980, the German Government make a substantial contribution to the upkeep of our forces, mainly through the provision of rent-free land and accommodation.

Mr. Mitchell: Why do not the Government come clean about their intentions concerning our commitment in Germany? What is the strategic justification for having our troops there at all? What role are they to play in the future? Why do not the Government tell us how they justify the necessary budget provision? Does not the lack of information prove that we need a full review of our defence commitment, instead of day-to-day improvising by the Government?

Mr. Hamilton: The strategic justification for the Rhine Army and, indeed, for the support of the Royal Air Force in Germany is that these forces are our contribution to the rapid reaction corps, which is at the heart of NATO. We consider that the future security of these islands and of Europe as a whole lies in maintaining NATO, the Atlantic alliance, with American involvement in the defence of Europe.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in considering these costs, it is essential that we do not have a repetition of the 1920s, when American and British forces were withdrawn from the continent of Europe at a time when that continent was moving into political instability? Does he agree that, against that background, the best possible aspect of our conventional forces is our commitment to mainland Europe?

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely correct. We can never divorce the security of the United Kingdom from that of Europe as a whole. Indeed, it is very difficult to make it clear to the United States of America that we want to see that country involved in the defence of Europe and playing a role in our future defence requirements if we are to withdraw our troops from Germany, which is right at the heart of NATO.

Bosnia

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the United States of America on the use of military equipment in Bosnia.

Mr. Rifkind: Both bilaterally and at the United Nations and in other international forums, I and my officials have had many discussions with representatives of the United States Government about developments in Bosnia and about the current operations there under the auspices of the United Nations and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has President Clinton totally ruled out the use of military force in Bosnia to end the ethnic cleansing? Equally, has the United Kingdom totally ruled out the use of military force?

Mr. Rifkind: The United States Government have said that they are prepared to consider making a contribution with regard to the implementation of any ceasefire that might be agreed between the parties in Bosnia. They have not yet said explicitly whether that involves the deployment of ground forces. As for the United Kingdom, as I said in answer to an earlier question, there is no

possibility of our providing ground forces for a combat role in Bosnia. We are prepared to consider what contributions we may make in the event of an effective ceasefire being implemented and seen to be working on the ground.

Mr. Robert Banks: On the possible deployment of American, and more especially NATO, peacekeeping ground forces in Bosnia, will my right hon. and learned Friend exercise great caution bearing in mind the fact that peacekeeping ground forces can be tied down for many years? There are heavy costs involved. Is not it better for such peacekeeping to be done under the auspices of the United Nations, given the wider compilation of forces that it can deploy?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to urge caution with regard to any deployment of United Kingdom forces to the former Yugoslavia. I believe that it is also the case that the United Nations should be the sponsoring body for any initiative of this kind. It has been the experience in many previous United Nations operations that an initial commitment can have implications for years to come.
I believe that the time has arrived for the United Nations to consider rotating its forces to carry out its obligations in various theatres around the world. There should no longer be an assumption in any part of the world that countries that contribute to a United Nations operation should continue to contribute as long as the United Nations is present in that particular territory.

DROPS

Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the demountable rack-off loading and pick-up system.

Mr. Aitken: Negotiations with the receiver of Leyland DAF, which we hope will result in the completion of the order for medium mobility DROPS vehicles at Leyland, are in progress.

Mr. Hall: The Government have a contract with Leyland DAF to provide this particular system at a cost of £387 million, of which £80 million has already been spent. Will the Minister confirm that Dr. McIntosh, the chief of defence procurement, has written to the Department of Trade and Industry to say that it is in the taxpayers' best interests if the production of this system remains at Leyland DAF? What response has Dr. McIntosh had from the DTI?

Mr. Aitken: The chief of defence procurement does, of course, consult Ministers and did so before writing that particular letter. It is our hope that the order can be completed at Leyland. It is encouraging that the receivers have managed to restart some production, including that of DROPS vehicles. We are working with the receivers to see how we can best facilitate the completion of the order, which is in both our best interests.

Mr. Martlew: On 12 February, in a written reply to a question regarding the future of Leyland DAF, the Minister stated that a preliminary assessment was being carried out with regard to the fact that the MOD had ordered 2,400 Army vehicles that had yet to be delivered by Leyland DAF. Did that assessment state that there was


an urgent need for those vehicles and that if Leyland DAF did not carry out the order there would be a considerable delay in delivering them? Did that assessment also point out the possibility that the order could go to the continent if it was not met by Leyland DAF?

Mr. Aitken: I do not think that the assessment was quite as far ranging and sweeping as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I shall certainly check the true position. The fact is that in the present unhappy situation we are co-operating to the full with the present receivers of Leyland DAF.

Royal Irish Regiment

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence what is the current (a) full-time and (b) part-time strength of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, the former Ulster Defence Regiment; and if he will make a statement on the current progress of reorganisation.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: As at 28 February 1993, the strength of the full-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment, home service, was 112 officers and 2,789 soldiers. The strength of the part-time element was 136 officers and 2,564 soldiers.
The reorganisation that followed the formation of the Royal Irish Regiment is proceeding well.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister knows that the part-time element is vital to the success of the regiment. Could he advise some of the regular officers who have recently been posted to it to revise the excessive training schedules that some of them are operating? Former UDR soldiers have decades of operational experience, more so than some of the officers in question. There is a limit to the amount of time that can be spared for training unless one wants to drive the part-timers out of the regiment, which 1 assume the Minister does not want to do. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment is essential for the future of the regiment and gives us the reserve capability that can be called up if at any time it should be needed. I know that the part-time soldiers are concerned about the amount of training that they have to do, but that is true of all elements of the British Army: we have to ensure that our soldiers are fully trained. I am afraid that that is one of the requirements we make of them, although I know that they feel that they would be better employed on operational duties. I cannot give the hon. Member the satisfaction that he wants. We must ensure that all our soldiers are properly trained for the tasks that they are asked to do.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House is particularly noisy today. I should be much obliged if hon. Members would now settle down.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to sign up to the social chapter would inflict incalculable damage on British business and hold back economic recovery? Will he confirm that he will continue to resist the social chapter and can I tell him that in doing so he certainly has my support and should have the support of everyone on this side of the House?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The social chapter would be bad for Britain. It would damage British industry, choke off foreign investment and destroy jobs. I have to say to the House that delay in ratifying the Maastricht treaty would do exactly the same thing. The treaty is in the national interest and we shall pursue it. We want to be inside Europe and outside the social charter.

Mr. John Smith: Bearing in mind the widespread support for the Committee of the Regions to be composed of elected representatives, including support for that proposition from the Tory-controlled local authority associations, what on earth did the Prime Minister think he was doing in opposing an amendment that any real democrat should have supported?

The Prime Minister: It was a very bad amendment and it was a very bad amendment for this reason: we made it perfectly clear in the debate that we are not against the inclusion of elected local government representatives, but there are others, including business men, who could add value to its work. That would add an element of flexibility and other partners in Europe have come to similar conclusions. Only Holland and Greece have so far made their nominations to the committee and neither of those countries has confined its membership to elected representatives.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that it was his own foolishness and obstinacy which led him to oppose an amendment which, if he had an ounce of judgment, he could have accepted months ago?

The Prime Minister: The reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon takes that view is quite clear. He is embarrassed that he has neglected his principles yet again on this Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what this country cannot afford: the lost jobs, the lost investment and the lost influence that would be put at risk if we were seen to turn our backs on this treaty and our place in Europe, as he and his vote last night indicate that he would do.

Mr. John Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman a fine one to talk about delay, when he promised the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that Third Reading would be delayed until the Danish referendum? Is


not the painful truth for the Prime Minister that far from being stabbed in the back, as he complains he has been, he has shot himself in the foot?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said one thing and done another on Europe time after time and in this country and, in Europe, no one will ever trust him again on this issue.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the police on their superb achievement in finding a major hoard of Semtex and in making a number of connected arrests? Does he agree that the defence of society against murder by terrorists is a responsibility of every man and woman and every citizen —including Labour party Members, who until now have continually refused to support the prevention of terrorism Act?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Labour party will soon have the opportunity to improve on that record. The Opposition have now voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on 11 occasions. Unless they vote with us tomorrow on that Act they should pipe down on crime for good.

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the devastation caused by water cut-offs to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? Will he guarantee that there will be no change in Scots law to allow any such domestic cut-offs in Scotland, particularly as part of any Tory plans to steal, privatise or franchise Scottish water? [Interruption.] It is obvious that this lot do not care, judging by the noise that they make, but we do.

The Prime Minister: I can give the hon. Gentleman no comfort on that point. Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1992 the United Kingdom clothing industry exported goods worth £2–25 billion, an increase of 8·5 per cent? Is not that a fine example of our first quality manufacturing industry?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There is no doubt that the clothing industry and many other manufacturing industries have dramatically increased their exports, not least as a result of the changed economic climate and the changed management structures in so many companies.

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Prime Minister consider that there is any connection between the prevailing values of the nation and the prevailing values of the Government? Is not there a clear connection between record levels of crime

and social breakdown and this Government, who have consistently, in every policy since 1979, appealed to personal selfishness, personal greed and looking after number one?
The Home Secretary talks about dealing with nasty pieces of work. Is not it true that this country has been run by some nasty pieces of work for the past 14 years and that we are now having to deal with the social consequences?

The Prime Minister: In the 1980s the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends blamed affluence for crime. These days they tend to blame unemployment for crime. When, if ever, will they blame the criminal, who is truly responsible?

Sir George Gardiner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Maastricht, he enjoys the united support of this party for the Asylum Bill; the Education Bill; the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill; the National Lottery etc. Bill; with one exception, the Railways Bill; the Chancellor's autumn statement; and his leadership?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point to huge areas of agreement and to the enormous extent to which this year's parliamentary programme has already passed through this House and is in another place. I look forward to completing the rest of our programme, including the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chisholm: Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that, whatever else he may try to impose on the Scottish people, he will never seek to change the law which makes the obscenity of water privatisation illegal in Scotland? Will he also give an assurance that he will do not deals on that or any other issue with the Scottish National party? If he does, may we have a copy of the letter, as happened last night?

The Prime Minister: I must say that when a really substantial deal was done between the Labour party and minority parties, it was in 1970 and it was done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.
As far as water privatisation is concerned, I made my view clear a few moments ago and it will remain as I stated it.

Mr. Faber: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest Institute of Directors survey, which shows that optimism among business directors about the future of their companies is now at an all-time high since August 1988? Does he agree that that is encouraging news for economic recovery and shows that confidence is returning to businesses, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members to talk Britain down?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right and the number of Opposition Members who were scoffing at the


good news he just set out illustrates his point more clearly than anything else. The Institute of Directors survey comes on top of an optimistic survey by the CBI—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like that, but it is true. They do not want to know that retail sales rose 1·4 per cent. in January, that car registrations were up 16 per cent. in February and that housing starts and completions are up. They know that good news for the country is bad news for them.

Mr. Garrett: Is not it the hallmark of a discredited Prime Minister always to say that anybody who criticises him or his policies is unpatriotic?

The Prime Minister: Only when it is untrue.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arnold: Is not the decision of the Home Secretary to publish league tables of the relative performances of our police forces welcome, not least at a time when the Government are spending more than ever on the police and when there are more policemen on the streets? Surely the ordinary citizen is entitled to know the relative performance of his local police force.

The Prime Minister: I believe that he is so entitled and we intend to ensure that he can. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that and I hope that Opposition Members will not fight the right to give more information to the public in the way they have fought every other right to give more information to the public. They are in favour of freedom of information only in the abstract, not in the reality.

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rooney: Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow it will be 22 weeks since the President of the Board of Trade promised to intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner? In view of his absolute lack of intervention in those 22 weeks, are we to assume that he has been on hunger strike, or has there been a military coup?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for 22 weeks. Let me remind him of some of the things that have happened. There has been the autumn statement, increased capital allowances, the abolition of car tax, maintained capital expenditure, a low inflation rate, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates, pushing towards an agreement on GATT and a large number of tours abroad to sell British business. Where has the hon. Gentleman been that he has missed every one of those things?

Mr. Duncan-Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Duncan-Smith: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports that the Holland Park school, one-time flagship of trendy 1960s educational teaching, has now started to change tack? Will he contrast that with the support it is now giving to the excellent educational reforms which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is pushing through against the rubbishy education policies coming from the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen that report, but I certainly very much welcome it. There is growing recognition that the damaging and discreditable theories of the 1960s so admired by the Opposition belong in the history books, but certainly no longer belong in the classrooms. Even the pioneers of those theories recognise that and I hope that soon everyone will acknowledge it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The House knows that points of order are taken after statements.

Scottish Government (White Paper)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, I should like to make a statement about Scottish constitutional issues.
As the House will know, since the general election —[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will appreciate that this is yet another important statement to which Members wish to listen. Will those Members who are leaving, including Members who are having conversations across Benches on both sides of the House, please leave quickly and quietly? Perhaps we can have the doors closed so that we can hear what is going on.

Mr. Lang: With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Scottish constitutional issues.
As the House will know, since the general election the Government have been conducting a wide-ranging examination of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom and the way our Westminster Parliament works for Scotland. I am today placing before the House a White Paper setting out our conclusions—"Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good".
The Act of Union of 1707 secured for the Scottish people a strong and special place within the United Kingdom. It guaranteed the continuance of Scotland's separate legal, educational and local government systems. The more recent establishment of the Scottish Office itself, as a Department responsible for administering much of Scotland's government, is another illustration of the capacity of the Union to accommodate—indeed, to encourage—diversity. Equally, the Union has enabled Scotland to participate fully in the affairs of the United Kingdom, and Scots have done so to considerable effect. The United Kingdom is a partnership of peoples which has achieved great things and from which all its constituent parts have benefited.
The initiative known as taking stock has led us to come forward with a range of proposals aimed at reinforcing the Union and Scotland's place within it.
First, recognising Scotland's separate legal system and its other legislative needs, the Government propose a number of initiatives to improve the existing parliamentary arrangements for handling Scottish business. The Scottish Grand Committee at present has powers to debate Scottish matters and the Scottish estimates and to take the Second Reading debates of Scottish legislation. It is also empowered to meet in Edinburgh.
We propose to build on these arrangements, providing for up to 12 general debates each Session, with the Opposition parties selecting the subject for debate on a set number of occasions, though, of course, Scottish matters, like Scottish legislation, will where appropriate continue to be debatable on the Floor. We also propose a new procedure allowing for debates on affirmative resolutions and on prayers against negative resolutions to be referred when appropriate to the Scottish Grand Committee.
The arrangements enabling the Committee to handle Scottish legislation will remain unchanged, with any Second Reading vote being taken formally on the Floor of

the House. The Report stage and Third Reading debate will also continue to be taken on the Floor of the House in the usual way.
We further believe that the Secretary of State's responsibilities have become sufficiently wide to justify augmenting these arrangements by proposing that from time to time sessions of questions to Scottish Office Ministers be held in   the Scottish Grand Committee in addition to those that take place every four weeks in this House. These sessions could be held either at Westminster or in Scotland.
We also propose that, at the end of each meeting of the Committee, there should be an opportunity for an Adjournment debate specifically on matters of concern to Scotland. It may occasionally be appropriate also for statements to be made by Scottish Office Ministers to the Scottish Grand Committee. In addition, we propose to establish a new procedure to enable the Scottish Grand Committee to invite the Scottish Office Minister in another place and also the Lord Advocate to give evidence before it on matters within their fields of responsibility.
Some of these changes will require amendments to the Standing Orders of both Houses, and we will bring these forward for debate in due course, having first consulted Opposition parties in the usual way.
Standing Orders of the House already contain a provision that enables Bills to be referred after Second Reading to a Special Standing Committee. We consider that this provision can provide a particularly appropriate mechanism for scrutinising some Scottish Bills and we propose its wider use for some Scottish legislation in future, with provision for the evidence-taking sessions to be held where appropriate in Scotland.
Taken together, I believe that these measures will lead to a significant improvement in the handling of parliamentary business relating to Scotland, in a way which is less remote, which is more responsive to Scottish priorities and concerns, and which may relieve some of the pressures on the Floor of the House. I stress, however, that in all these procedural changes Scottish Ministers will remain fully accountable to the House, and the Scottish Grand Committee will remain wholly a Committee of the House. The integrity of Parliament will and must remain intact.
We also propose changes in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. Recognising the important role of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies and their capacity to meet local needs in the delivery of the Government's training schemes, from April next year the responsibility for training policy in Scotland will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, within the framework of the Government's overall strategic priorities, initiatives and policies.
Responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council will be transferred to the Scottish Office from the Department of National Heritage, also with effect from April 1994. We also propose to transfer the ownership of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. from the Civil Aviation Authority to the Scottish Office. And, in the context of the policies emerging from the forthcoming White Paper on science and technology, we will review the scope for transferring to the Scottish Office responsibility for schemes for encouraging industrial innovation.
These proposals represent a worthwhile integration of decision-making powers in the areas I have mentioned, with the other activities for which the Scottish Office already has responsibility.
I am also pleased to be able to confirm to the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy at the Department of Trade and Industry is today announcing that his Department will open a major new oil and gas office in Aberdeen to serve the offshore industry.
I also wish to ensure that the Scottish Office is more visible in Scotland and more accessible to the general public. I propose to publish in future a concise and accessible annual report on the activities of the Scottish office and the non-departmental public bodies and next steps agencies for which I am responsible. The annual report may be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for scrutiny and debate.
Although my Department already has offices throughout Scotland, we shall seek opportunities for further dispersal within Scotland. This will apply both to parts of the Scottish Office and to non-lepartmental public bodies for which I am responsible. In addition, in accordance with the principles of the citizens charter, we shall establish a central inquiry unit accessible from all parts of Scotland for the cost of a local telephone call. This unit will be backed up by the designation of many of the existing departmental offices as Scottish Office information points. We shall examine the case for supplementing this facility with other information points in smaller towns around Scotland, operated on an agency basis.
The White Paper also sets out other plans I have to further the goal of the citizens charter by making my Department more responsive to the needs of the people of Scotland.
Last December, the leaders of the European Community met in Scotland for the successful Edinburgh summit that marked the climax of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community. We will seek to hold further such events in Scotland in the future. In that context I am pleased to announce that the European Community will hold a Europartenariat conference of small businesses in Glasgow in December. Further details of this major event will be published shortly.
The partners of the Union need to work at bringing the reality of the Union alive for all the people of the United Kingdom. The White Paper outlines how Scotland's status as a nation within the Union can be more effectively recognised. The Union was and still is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom, but that does not mean that it cannot be made better; and we stand ready to consider other measures to this end which may emerge over time, to the benefit of all its partners.
The White Paper that I am publishing today does not mark the end of the taking stock process, but the start of a renewed emphasis by the Government on the importance to the United Kingdom of all its component parts. We will continue to seek further ways of strengthening the Union and Scotland's place in it.
We reject utterly the arguments of those who want Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom, either through the direct means of separation or by way of the slippery slope of a separate parliament. Our firm commitment is to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, secured through this House and this Parliament. The United Kingdom is a partnership of

nations that has endured. We believe strongly that it is a partnership for good. In that spirit, I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State not agree that his statement makes it plain once and for all that the Tories do not understand the Scottish people and never will? Does he accept that 11 months ago today the lion's roar from Scottish voters, who at the ballot boxes demanded a Scottish parliament, has been met with a weak, unworthy whimper and that he has squandered a unique opportunity?
The Scottish people wanted action on industry, on jobs and on keeping water in public hands. Is it not disgraceful and a complete repudiation of the assertion that the statement represents democracy that a few minutes ago the Prime Minister, almost by sleight of hand, said that water privatisation will be introduced in Scotland? That makes a mockery of the charade in which the Secretary of State claims to be involved. It is the complete opposite of democracy at work.
Above all, did not the Scottish people in April last year vote for home rule? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The response to that is not the acceptance of the overwhelming view of the Scottish people, but today's ludicrous statement containing sheer tokenism, talking shops and timid and tired policies. These conclusions to the stocktaking exercise surely make a laughing stock of the Prime Minister's pre-election promises in Scotland. Why is the party that complains about unaccountable bureaucracy in Europe now increasing unaccountable bureaucracy in Edinburgh? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are in good voice today, but I would appreciate it if they kept their voices to themselves in all parts of the House until I call them to speak. I hope that that is clearly understood.

Mr. Clarke: Despite the few laudable suggestions on training, industrial support schemes, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd., the Arts Council and relocation policy, does the Secretary of State agree—if he ignores the ill-informed interruptions by people on the Conservative Benches who were not elected by the people of Scotland to decide on Scottish issues—that the real issue is not administrative but political devolution, and nowhere is that in the Government's policy?
For example, the Scottish Grand Committee proposal makes it clear that decisions will be taken not by those elected to deal with Scottish issues but by the House alone. Where is the political devolution there? Where is the sensitivity? I say to the Prime Minister, as he sits there sneering at Scottish views, that he ignores the views of the people of Scotland at his peril.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the solutions offered by the Government only make the democratic deficit worse? What is the point of increasing the power of the Scottish Office without in any way increasing its accountability to the Scottish people? More bureaucracy, but no democracy.
On information points and outposts, are we to look forward to more Tory lawyers and accountants in offices in the main street? The Government will say that that is on the French model, but I remind the Secretary of State that the French support real subsidiarity, real powers to the


regions, the kind of powers that the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are denying to the people of Scotland.
Why is the Secretary of State ignoring the largest neglected group in Scotland—Scotland's women? There are no proposals concerning the Equal Opportunities Commission—no devolution there. The right hon. Gentleman talks in paragraph 9.4 about inspectors for social work, police and schools, but who guards the guards, and to whom are they accountable?
The Secretary of State tells us that the Government will consult much more openly on the appointment to public boards. Does that mean that they will rescind the decision on health boards and trusts—when they ignored the views of local communities and appointed Tory placemen and women?
Finally, how can the Secretary of State claim that his philosophy is strengthening the Union when he was prepared last night to make deals with parties whose philosophy is to break the Union? The House will be aware, despite the sneers on the Conservative Benches, of the "Dear Margaret—Yours sincerely, Ian" letter. Oh dear, oh dear.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish nationalists cannot claim that they are leading the opposition against the Conservative Government when they spend their time making private deals with the Conservative Government? Is it not the case that this week's events show that one can never trust the nationalists or the Tories and one can never trust the nationalists not to make deals with the Tories?
The truth is that this unrepresentative Chamber—in terms of Scottish affairs—ignores the simple fact that the Labour party does trust the Scottish people and the Scottish people trust the Labour party because they know that only the Labour party will deliver a Scottish parliament and real democracy to Scottish affairs.

Mr. Lang: That was not so much a sound bite as a sound nibble, and not a very sound one at that.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) calls for action, but if he sits down and reads the White Paper that I have published today, he will find no fewer than 50 specific commitments from the Government of value and importance to the future of Scotland within the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will not recognise that Scotland can enjoy benefits from being within the United Kingdom, because he is so besotted with the idea of a separate Scottish parliament, which would inevitably lead to Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.
Wrapped up among the sound-bite rhetoric, I detected a quiet welcome for a number of our specific proposals. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he and his party and other Opposition parties reject the proposals, they need not happen—but the people of Scotland would be the poorer.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of a democratic deficit. The reality is that the proposals give Back Benchers on both sides of the House a better opportunity to pursue Scottish issues and initiatives, hold Ministers accountable, and protect the interests of their constituents.
The hon. Gentleman asked about water. There are no proposals in the White Paper affecting the future of water. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right when

he spoke about the advantages and benefits of privatisation. I have no doubt that privatisation, if we decide on that, will be better for the water industry, as for others.
As to voting for home rule, the hon. Gentleman keeps praying in aid the support of all those whom he says voted for home rule. The reality is that on the Opposition Benches one can find unionists, federalists, separatists, devolutionists, don't knows, and don't cares. That adds up to 75 per cent. of nothing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about health boards and health trusts, and complained that too many Conservatives and not enough socialists sit on them. The only complaint that I have read in the Scottish press was about there being too many socialists. When I wrote to the hon. Gentleman's party and to the other parties inviting nominations for those boards and those trusts, I received not one suggestion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentleman must resume their seats.

Mr. William McKelvey: That was a lie.

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr. McKelvey: The Secretary of State is seeking to mislead the House, by making that statement.

Madam Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman, who interrupted without being called, to withdraw his remark. I ask him to do that because—[Interruption.] Order. I need no help from below the Gangway. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do that because I hope that he will catch my eye later and be able to put his point. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his remark?

Mr. McKelvey: Of course, Madam Speaker. I withdraw it.

Madam Speaker: I am much obliged. That is all that we need.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is answering the points made by a Member from the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Monklands, West raised the question of an alleged deal between my party and the Scottish National party. I do not know whether the letter that the hon. Gentleman flourished was given to him by the Scottish National party, or whether he has been rummaging in the handbag of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not break a confidence—especially when a lady is involved.
Why should the hon. Gentleman complain about my party doing a deal with the Scottish National party when his party has been trying for weeks and weeks to do a deal with the Scottish National party? Sooner or later, Labour will have to choose—are they unionists or are they nationalists? They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who were elected to represent Scotland's interest in the House are delighted with the White Paper's proposals? He and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are to be congratulated on their understanding of what the Union really means to true Scots. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cornerstone of this unitary Parliament is the right of right hon. and hon. Members to ask questions?
For many years, one of Opposition Members' main complaints has been that they have not had the opportunity to put more questions to Scottish Ministers. Surely they can only welcome the proposal for questions and Adjournment debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. If the new practices are to benefit the Union and Scotland, the participation of unionist Opposition Members will be required.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful for the welcome that he has given my proposals.
Of course it is important for Scottish Office Ministers to answer questions in the House every four weeks, as before, so that such questions can be asked by hon. Members representing every part of the United Kingdom. It is fair to say, however, that, as the Scottish Office has responsibilities for health, education, roads, industry, housing and a whole range of other matters—each of which is separately the subject of Question Time on the Floor of the House—Scottish Members should from time to time have an additional opportunity to pursue such matters further in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has managed to pull off the impossible by producing a feature film that is even more disappointing than its many trailers.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we have said in the past that we will support measures that will lead to improvement in the government of Scotland, and in the way in which we can discharge our duties to our constituents—including more Question Times, and the opportunity to question the Law Officers? Will he also confirm that evidence given to Special Standing Committees in regard to any Bill to privatise Scottish Water will be treated with more respect than the consultation responses that were dismissed and cast aside by the Prime Minister today, when he said that there "would be" privatisation of water in Scotland?
Notwithstanding all the PR hype and gimmicks that have been provided at the cost of a local telephone call, what are the realities of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Is it not true that he has been unable to transfer fisheries responsibilities to Scotland; that, instead of a full petroleum engineering division, we have only a few jobs—welcome though they are; that we are still slavishly following the English in regard to legal aid cuts; and that the Ministry of Defence has reversed its policies on jobs for Glasgow? Is not the statement summed up by the fact that, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, while we debate in Edinburgh we will still vote here in London?

Mr. Lang: Again, wrapped up in the rhetoric was a broad "thank you" for some of my proposals. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman: alone among Opposition Members, he took the opportunity to come to me and put his suggestions. I took them into account when drawing up my proposals.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the fisheries question was not on my agenda. The question of the Department of Trade and Industry office in Aberdeen has been dealt with by the full and welcome announcement of a considerable number of high-quality jobs: the number will increase as more oil companies transfer the relevant parts of their activities to Aberdeen. That will be of great value to the United Kingdom's offshore industry.
As for voting, it is true that power remains in the United Kingdom's Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that should not be so, he should join the Scottish National party.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: First, give that Scottish education is under my right hon. Friend's command, may I plead for the immediate extinguishing of the new word "Europartenariat"? May I also ask him to remind the House that the strength of the Union, along with the variety of our systems of law, has enabled us to teach those who live south of the border—as 80 per cent. of the Scots who live in Britain do—how much better is our system of law? Those factors have allowed us to prevent many difficulties that have resulted in the release of people who were apparently properly convicted because of flaws in the law of England. Long may my right hon. Friend's proposals strengthen our law.

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I am not very happy with the Eurospeak word Europartenariat. Nevertheless, that will be an important conference of small businesses, many hundreds of which will come to Glasgow in December, thus creating major opportunities for United Kingdom businesses, particularly Scottish businesses, to exchange contacts and contracts, to their mutual advantage. My hon. and learned Friend is also absolutely right to draw attention to the differences between Scottish law and English law. That is precisely the kind of diversity that is accommodated within the United Kingdom and that results in the cross-fertilisation of each system, to the benefit of both.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I appeal, before calling any other hon. Member, for one question only? Many hon. Members want to put questions to the Secretary of Stale. Therefore, I should be obliged if one question only were put, briskly, so that we can make progress.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: How much will these extra summits cost? Will the cost be similar to the last one we had, which cost the Scottish taxpayer £16 million?

Mr. Lang: Two thirds of the cost of a Europartenariat is met by the European Community. I have no doubt at all that the benefits that will flow from such a conference will more than outweigh any other costs.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all right-thinking Scots will welcome these well balanced, well thought out and constructive proposals? Does he accept that they will welcome the "Scottish Offices" set up throughout the land? Will he consider setting up one in Ayr?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting and positive suggestion, to which I will give close consideration.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Is the Secretary of State aware that the last time that such a response was given to so dire a situation, Nero played a fiddle? Now Ian Lang has played with a White Paper, to much the same effect. If he is so sure of the proposals that he has given us today, and if he thinks that the Scottish people want devolved bureaucracy, when what they want, in fact, is real democracy, why will he not put his proposals to a multi-option referendum?

Mr. Lang: There speaks an hon. Lady who is a member of a multi-option party. She is a member of Scotland United. I learned the other day that when the Labour party conference held a fringe meeting organised by Scotland United last autumn, there were five speakers on the platform and three in the audience, one of whom was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), so I do not think that Scotland United speaks for anybody.

Mr. George Kynoch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the electors of Kincardine and Deeside will particularly welcome his commitment to strengthen the Union with the rest of the United Kingdom? They will also particularly welcome the news that the Department of Trade and Industry is to open a new oil and gas office in Aberdeen. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that swift progress in setting up that office is made?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly assure him that all due speed will be used to ensure that that office is set up as quickly as possible. Initially, there will he 60 jobs, but that number will rise as industrial activity moves north.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What could Lord Sanderson have meant this morning when he said that the Government were contemplating changing the powers of local government? Has the Secretary of State told the Prime Minister, who is sitting next to him, that local government reform will cost at least £600 million extra?

Mr. Lang: Local government reform is not covered in my White Paper or statement, but, since the hon. Gentleman raises that question, all the estimates that we have seen will, far from adding to the costs of local government, reduce them.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the Union's greatest strengths is its dynamism and its constant ability to evolve and change in order to meet changing circumstances, new opportunities and different demands? Does he agree that the reforms that he has outlined today will set up the Union in fine style to meet the challenges of the new century, just as previous reforms enabled it to meet the specific and unique challenges of previous centuries, and that we can look forward to the 300th anniversary of the Union in 2007 with the Union in great shape?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, of course, won a seat from the Labour party at the last general election and did it through his stout defence of the Union. This announcement today reinforces that defence of the Union.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: One of the difficulties that I have noticed in Edinburgh is that, when the Grand Committee meeting stops at 1 o'clock,

very few Back Benchers have been given the opportunity to speak. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
As someone who is keen to ensure that the Union stays together, may I suggest that one of the things that the Secretary of State and the Government could do is to reduce unemployment and the despair that exists in many communities in Scotland? Where there is such despair, people become disillusioned with the present form of government and are then easy prey for the fanatics in the Scottish National party.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful response to the proposals that I have announced. Unemployment is the kind of issue which could be fully debated in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Sir Anthony Grant: I welcome my hon. Friend's sensible reform, but is it not high time to address the scandal of Scottish over-representation in the House? Is it not wholly undemocratic that Glasgow seats have only 30,000 or 40,000 constituents, whereas Cambridgeshire seats have 80,000 or 90,000?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for my announcement. The number of seats in the House derives from the Act of Union, which guaranteed Scotland a certain number of seats. However, I entirely agree that it is high time that the boundary commissioners got down to work on the relative sizes of constituencies.

Mr. Ernie Ross: If there is one thing that we can say with certainty on behalf of the people of Scotland, it is that, although the Secretary of State may have tried to placate the elected representatives in the House, he certainly has not satisfied the needs, demands and aspirations of the Scottish people. There is nothing about greater accountability in the proposals for Committees to meet in Edinburgh for extended periods and question times. When the Secretary of State addresses the question of accountability, and stops dealing with people who, on the day on which he tries to deal with them, talk about civil disobedience, the people of Scotland may start believing in him.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree. If he believes that any Scottish Committee should be accountable to a body outside the House, I believe that he is wrong. I believe that the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament is central to the future well-being of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend accept a warm welcome for his proposals, which keep the integrity of the Union, and can he assure us that, in consequence, we who represent the much larger population of the south-east of England will no longer be constantly elbowed out of debating time by the disproportionate number of Scots who pontificate on our affairs?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that my proposals show the capacity of the United Kingdom Parliament to accommodate the diversity of the different component parts of the union.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why does the Secretary of State not have the courage of his convictions


and put his proposals and the White Paper to the test with a multi-option referendum, along the lines of the Bill that I shall present to the House later this afternoon? The other option would be a Scottish parliament, whose exact powers would be decided by the people of Scotland, most of whom are fed up with the treachery and skulduggery of that parcel of rogues on the Government Bench.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman represents a party which one might call a multi-option party. It was the general secretary of the Labour party, Mr. Larry Whitty, who described a multi-option referendum as "a fairly ludicrous suggestion".

Madam Speaker: Sir Teddy Taylor. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has only just come in."] Order. I saw precisely when the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I welcome the modest but useful proposals. Is the Secretary of State aware of the huge admiration among supporters of the union for the guts and courage that he has shown in consistently resisting the divisive and costly devolution proposals, especially as he was standing in a marginal constituency and the whole of the Scottish press told him that he would have to change his mind to survive? He has shown the kind of courage that we should be proud to see in a Conservative Government and in this Parliament.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I well remember the fine example he set when he was the Member of Parliament for Cathcart.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] I do not need instruction, Madam Speaker, from the party that tried to sell out Scotland's water campaign. Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that he and the Prime Minister have laboured for a year to produce this constitutional charade? Does he not understand that what is wrong with the Grand Committee is not the number of meetings it holds, but the fact that it does not have the power to decide anything? Does he not understand that what is wrong with the Scottish Office is not the number of functions he has, but the fact that he is in charge of it without a democratic mandate from the Scottish people? Does he really believe that 50 propaganda offices around Scotland, peddling policies like the privatisation of Scotland's water, will endear the Scottish people to his bankrupt Union?

Mr. Lang: First, may I say how glad I was to see the hon. Gentleman in the Government Lobby last night? I am, however, grateful to him for not welcoming my announcement. I should have been deeply worried if he had welcomed it. The hon. Gentleman talks about a democratic mandate, but I remember that not so long ago he was shouting, "Scotland free by 93." Then he went to a general election, his representation in this House went down by 40 per cent. and his party now has three seats.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend will know that some of us have watched our party struggle for more than 20 years with the problem of coming to terms with the situation. Is he aware that those of us who were not attracted by Lady Thatcher's regime will find his proposals a move back in the direction of compromise, towards trying to satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people? Does he agree that this afternoon we have really seen the continuing battle between the Labour party and

the Scottish National party for the soul of the Scottish electorate which, as far as those on the Opposition Benches are concerned, seems only to be represented by a minority of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome, but I would not wish him to think that the package represents a compromise. It represents a firm commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, and we shall not budge one inch down the slippery slope towards devolution. With the package I believe that we can show that Union need not mean uniformity and that the United Kingdom Parliament can adapt its procedures to suit the needs of all its component parts.

Mr. George Galloway: They might be dancing in the streets of Raith this evening at the news, but certainly not anywhere else. The proposals will be treated with derision and disgust by the majority of the Scottish people, including a considerable number of Scottish Conservatives, according to a poll in The Scotsman this morning. Scotland deserves better than that —better than the ridiculous raft of proposals and better than the shabby, squalid manoeuvrings of the Scottish National party or the culture of political sectarianism that exists elsewhere. Why will not the Secretary of State answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams)? Why will he not have the legendary courage that his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to a few minutes ago? Why will he not put the proposals to the Scottish people in a multi-choice referendum?

Mr. Lang: I read in the newspapers today a poll that indicated strong support for the type of approach in our White Paper. I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a lot of people in Scotland want what he calls home rule. I am indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), speaking with all the authority of the shadow Chancellor, who said last week:
I think we are making a mistake if we just assume somehow there is huge enthusiasm for home rule in Scotland".
The hon. Gentleman asked for a multi-option referendum, but we had one on 9 April last year and it returned a Conservative Government.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that English Members are used to special treatment being given to Scotland and to Scottish Members in this House? He referred to the Act of Union and to the gross over-representaiton of Scottish Members here—20 per cent. more than is appropriate for English Members of Parliament. As we hear so much about democracy from Members on the Opposition Benches, would he increase the number of English Members by 100 so that there is a balance?

Mr. Lang: Decisions of that kind should be made by the House. But the House has continued to take the view that the treaty of Union should be honoured. That is the reason for the present representation.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State will not be surprised that right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench give a wholehearted welcome to this measure to strengthen the Union, especially as many families in Northern Ireland trace their roots to mother Scotland. At the end of the


White Paper the Secretary of State enunciates two principles—that the Government will continue to seek further ways of strengthening the Union and Scotland's place in it; and that they utterly reject the arguments of those who want Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom, either through direct means of separation or by way of the slippery slope of a separate parliament.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that those two principles are supported by all his Cabinet colleagues? If so, will he direct the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to them and remind his right hon. and learned Friend that an even greater proportion of people in Northern Ireland vote for the Union than is the case in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for hs welcome for the statements in my White Paper. He will appreciate that, as I am a territorial Minister, my responsibilities relate to Scotland, and my statement today is clearly directed towards Scotland. However, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did the other day, that the Government remain committed to the unity of the United Kingdom, as it affects Northern Ireland, so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland support it.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I thank my right hon. Friend for doing nothing to undermine the key role that Scotland plays in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that Scotland and England have much to learn from each other? For example, England could learn lessons from the Scottish legal system, while Scotland could learn lessons from England's highly successful introduction of grant-maintained schools and water privatisation.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for his confirmation of my expressed view that union need not mean uniformity.

Mr. Norman Hogg:: I should like to give a warm welcome to the Secretary of State's statement that the Europartenariat exhibition is to come to Scotland and to compliment the Minister for Industry, who, in Thessalonika last June, worked hard to that end. The exhibition will bring jobs to Scotland.
However, I must ask the Secretary of State for an undertaking that if there are to be any inter-party discussions about his proposals and about changes in our Standing Orders he will refrain from taking part in any shabby negotiations with minority parties and other hole-in-the wall organisations, which have discredited him in the past 24 hours. I make that point in the hope that we shall get back to doing things properly, and away from arrangements such as those that so discredited the Government last night.

Mr. Lang: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the decision to hold the Europartenariat in Glasgow in December. It does indeed flow from the visit of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has been working so hard to secure this outcome for Scotland.
Consultations regarding the amendment of Standing Orders will be conducted through the usual channels and

in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman is a former deputy Chief Whip, and I myself am a former Whip, so neither of us is an amateur in these matters.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the taxpayers of Scotland will be very grateful that my right hon. Friend did not take the route towards having tax-raising powers in Scotland. I wonder whether he could move towards a system fairer to Scottish Members and taxpayers. I refer to the fact that the spending powers of his Department should be proportionate to those of the English and Welsh Departments. We ought not to have a situation in which a disproportionate amount of taxpayers' money is spent in any part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The approach that the Government take in these matters is to secure a comparable level of service in all parts of the United Kingdom. Given the varying circumstances within the United Kingdom, it is inevitable that more resources are directed to some areas, be they Merseyside, East Anglia or the central belt of Scotland, than to others. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the important thing is to try to achieve a uniform standard of service, as far as possible. The formula for distributing resources to achieve that is reviewed regularly.

Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in reality, his statement changes nothing in Scotland? The Scottish people remain as before, wholly at the mercy of a Tory majority in the House which they did not elect. Does he not understand that, despite the parliamentary cretinism shown by some on the Opposition Benches last night, he cannot count on continuing disarray and disunity on these Benches to see him safely through to the next general election? The Scottish people are beginning to understand that if the fight against Tory policies, the fight for socialist change and the fight for Scottish self-determination is ever to be won, it will not be won in the House but through mass extra-parliamentary action by the Scottish people back in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: Promises, promises. What is clear from the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that he has no right to claim to speak for the people of Scotland, any more than have the Scottish National party or the Liberal Democrats. We stood for election to a United Kingdom Parliament in April last year and the Conservative and Unionist party won that election.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is extending the number and use of forums where Scottish questions can be asked and debated without the presence of hon. Members representing England, Wales and Ireland? If that is to be the case, will he ensure, as a member of the Cabinet, that when matters concerning England, Ireland and Wales are debated in the House, Scottish Members will not be present? Otherwise, we shall have a constitutional problem.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend will be familiar with the experience that Scottish Members can have from time to time when they seek to intervene in health or environment questions on the Floor of the House only to be told by the Minister that they are matters for which the Scottish Office is answerable. This is something which cuts both ways. It


is important in this Parliament that we arrange the mechanisms for delivering government to ensure that the varying and diverse interests of different parts of the United Kingdom are fully accommodated. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State trumpets that the White Paper and his statement address the real problem of open government and giving information. Why, then, did he choose today of all days to smuggle through the House, by a planted question from one of his hon. Friends, the announcement about the petroleum engineering directorate? Does he not realise that it is not a matter of information being given that is at the root of the problem, but the Government's total insensitivity to the problems facing the people of Scotland? If he really wants to strengthen the Union he must begin from the ground up, by strengthening local government, rather than weakening it and by taking on the Scottish nationalists and not getting into bed with them. Above all else, he must stop pandering to them with some of the nonsense that he has in the White Paper.

Mr. Lang: Far from trying to smuggle in the oil jobs, I am delighted to be able to proclaim that announcement, as I have done today. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is in Aberdeen holding a press conference to announce the precise details. I hope the hon. Gentleman can find it in his heart, as a Member representing Aberdeen, to welcome the announcement, which is of great value to his constituents.
Of course we are keen to reform and strengthen local government and we will bring forward proposals on that. As to relations with the Scottish National party, I hope that those on the hon. Member's Front Bench are listening to what he said.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Scotland have always wanted more say over their own affairs? There is only one party that is willing to give parents more say over the education of their children, council house tenants more say in the running of their estates and taxpayers more say in the spending of their own income. Is it not paradoxical that those who call for a multi-option referendum today were, on 9 April, promising constitutional change without a referendum?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not put it better.

Mr. William McKelvey: We have heard much from the whingeing English about the preferential treatment given to the Scots. Could I ask the Secretary of State why preferential treatment, or even-handed treatment, was not given to the Scots two weeks ago when a statutory instrument went through the House on the opening of betting shops in Scotland? The Government side of that Committee was nine Anglos and a Scottish Minister. Not one member of the Back-Bench committee for Scotland was allowed on it.

Mr. Lang: That is a matter for the Selection Committee and I am sure that it will note the hon. Gentleman's point, with which I have some sympathy.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reaffirmation of the fundamental importance of the Union will be widely welcomed in Wales?

Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that the interests of Wales will also be taken into account in considering these matters further.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that this is not going to be taken as much of a stocktaking for a nation which has voted consistently and overwhelmingly for the establishment of its own parliament within the United Kingdom? Does he appreciate that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had it wrong when 'he said that the most important right that we have in Parliament is the right to ask questions? The most important right that we have in Parliament is to vote and if these reforms are serious surely the right hon. Gentleman should have the courage to submit any legislation on the future of the water industry in Scotland to a vote in the Scottish Grand Committee, elected by the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Member recognises the importance of the vote in our democratic system. I will do nothing to diminish the importance of the vote; nor will I do anything to diminish or dissipate the power of that vote here in the House of Commons, where it matters most.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for reminding us that the quisling SNP has been reduced to "three in 93". May I suggest that it might be reduced to "none in 2001". That might be appropriate. On the question of partnership, I cannot agree with the Secretary of State. I wonder if he might address this. This is not a partnership that he is talking about but an unequal and unrepresentative fix that he is attempting to obtain. I share his concern—and I hope that he sees that—for the Union. I wish to see the continuing Union of the United Kingdom, but I am concerned that the present set-up may diminish it and make it an even more devalued arrangement.
In terms of accountability, I am glad that the Secretary of State said that he would not reduce the power of the vote. May I ask him to put together a Scottish Grand Committee that reflects the voting power of the people of Scotland and then allow the legislation that he and I discussed to be judged by a representative committee that reflects the people's voting pattern in Scotland? That is why people will reject this. Does he not realise that, so long as he uses his English colleagues' Tory majority—

Madam Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Connarty: I am asking a question. Does he not realise that he will never get the credibility of the Scottish people for what he is trying to sell?

Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Member is wrong about the SNP having no representatives in 2001. I hope that we shall achieve that result long before that time. The route that the hon. Member is suggesting for the Scottish Grand Committee would mean either that some Members of Parliament, notably from his own party, would have to be disqualified from the Scottish Grand Committee or that English Back Benchers would have to be brought in. We had English Back Benchers on the Committee in the past,


and the Labour party was against that. For some incomprehensible reason, those of my hon. Friends who served on the Scottish Grand Committee were no longer keen to remain on it, so we now have all Scottish MPs on the Scottish Grand Committee, and I think that that is generally recognised as sensible.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State can wriggle all he likes, but the whole House heard the Prime Minister commit Scotland's water to be privatised. Does that careless and casual announcement by the Prime Minister not indicate his contempt, not only for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but for the Scottish people?

Mr. Lang: I heard what my right hon. Friend said and the hon. Gentleman heard what he said and he did not give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman indicates. He certainly spoke of the strength, the value and the qualities of privatisation and that is demonstrated by a large number of privatisations that have taken place in the past. it is not, however, part of my statement today.

Mr. Barry Porter: It is a fact that a disproportionate amount of taxpayers' money, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, is spent in Scotland, as, indeed, it is in Northern Ireland and in Wales. It is part of the price which I gladly pay for maintaining the Union. We should not fail to recognise the special needs of Scotland in that respect. I would suggest one item of public expenditure that should be given to a public body in Scotland to bring it up to the standards of England. I refer of course to the Scottish Rugby Union.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, despite the barb in the tail of his question. The fact is that, in a sense, England is playing at home in this Parliament; and as my hon. Friend will know and as Twickenham demonstrated, that gives some advantages.

Mr. Mike Watson: If the Secretary of State does not already know it, he will soon be aware that his proposals will be greeted with universal contempt throughout Scotland. They amount to a tawdry little collection of half measures and non-events; they mean nothing to the people of Scotland, and will give them no more say over their own affairs, which is what they clearly voted for in the general election last year.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not have the confidence in his views to put these matters to a referendum, will he at least allow a full debate in the House on the matters, to ensure that the points that the Scottish people sent us here to make are clearly put across to him in a way that there has been a failure to do hitherto? We want a Scottish parliament: we will settle for nothing less.

Mr. Lang: The suitability of the changes that I have proposed today will be shown by whether the hon. Gentleman's party takes advantage of them in due course. Debates are not a matter for me, but Standing Orders will have to be amended and the subject will be debated at that time.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: On the transfer of Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd. to the Scottish Office: will the Secretary of State give a guarantee to the employees of that company that there will be no reduction

in their pay and conditions or in the quality of their pension plans? A number of the employees are worried about that and would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give them a categorical guarantee now.

Mr. Lang: We have no plans to make any changes in that respect.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State agree that an occasion such as this prompts the thought among many that we enjoy exceedingly good fortune, in that the secessionist movement in Scotland is so honourably eminent but so poorly represented in this place—by this lot? Will he at least concede that there is a widespread belief in Scotland that we live in a highly centralised multinational state, which is more and more firmly embedded in an over-centralised European union? Why not settle the argument among federalists, unionists and separatists by holding a referendum?

Mr. Lang: We see the best way of resisting centralisation as devolving power to the people. That is what we are seeking to do by setting up local enterprise companies and hospital trusts, by privatisation, by council house ownership, by reducing taxation and by a range of other means—developing the citizens charter, which permeates many of the ideas in the White Paper, for instance.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing a comprehensive series of questions—that certainly goes for our side—on the vague statement that the Secretary of State has made.
The right hon. Gentleman has removed confusion and introduced confusion. He removed it by publicly thanking the hon. Member for Banff and Buchanan (Mr. Salmond) and the SNP for supporting the Government in the Lobbies last night, so no one is in any doubt about what took place then. He introduced confusion by appearing to be in conflict with the Prime Minister on the issue of water privatisation. The Prime Minister's statement was quite clear; what is not clear is whether the Secretary of State's consultation is a charade. The House must return to that important matter before too long.
This document, for which we have had to wait 11 months, offers little to the people of Scotland. It offers no real democracy; it offers devolution of power but not responsibility or accountability to the people of Scotland. It falls far short of the clearly expressed views of the Scottish people as recorded in April of last year.
The Government have ignored the opinions of the Scottish people. It is interesting that the document was published in a blue cover, the colour of the Tory party, whose supporters amount to a small minority of the people of Scotland—a minority becoming smaller still because of the Government's attitude. They have rejected the real democracy to which the Scottish people are committed but the Government clearly are not.

Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman's initial response showed that he agrees with and supports quite a number of these proposals. He talks of conflict. If he is looking for conflict, he should look to the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who has said, as quoted in the Courier last December:


I acknowledge there are too many Scots still sceptical of the value of a Scottish Parliament in bringing better government".
That clearly differs from the hon. Gentleman's view.
The colour of the White Paper is the blue of Scotland—[Interruption.]—the blue of Scotland in the Union. I believe that the presence of Scotland in the Union is a partnership for good.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Scottish people who will have been following our proceedings this afternoon must be greatly concerned about the Government's thinking on water privatisation. We heard earlier from the Prime Minister that water privatisation would be good for Scotland and would be beneficial for the people of Scotland, as it has been for the people south of the border. When the Secretary of State was questioned, he appeared to suggest that his consultation exercise was still continuing.
The people of Scotland are aware that water is of the utmost importance to them, as it is to every individual and family in the land. They are entitled to have the matter clarified, but it must be clarified quickly, now or this evening. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether, in the light of the confusion and differences in pronouncements between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the people of Scotland will receive the clear statement on that important issue to which they are entitled.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must deal with one point of order at a time.
It seems to me that the hon. Member is attempting to pursue a policy matter on which the Chair cannot pronounce. His remarks will have been heard by the occupants of the Government Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order, Madam Speaker."] One at a time, please.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that meetings of Standing Committees of the House studying legislation upstairs—I am thinking particularly of statutory instruments—may be attended by any hon. Member? Will you further confirm that the comments made earlier by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) were wrong and out of order? I attended the Committee about which he was speaking, using the rules of the House to do so, which demonstrates how well Scots rules are covered in this place.

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow me to answer one point of order at a time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When responding to a question from me, the Secretary of State suggested that I might like to welcome the fact that some jobs would be going to Aberdeen. I am not in a position to say yea or nay, since the relevant information is not available to me, although apparently it is to be made available by way of a planted question.
There is no point the Secretary of State referring to the opening of a new Department of Trade and Industry petroleum office when hon. Members have no idea what

that is all about and are unable to question him about it. It is nonsense to refer to better communications when the Secretary of State behaves in that manner.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. If it is a point for the Secretary of State, the hon. Member must find other means of pursuing it.

Mr. Kynoch: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it an abuse of the House that copies of the White Paper, which appear to have been given to occupants of the Opposition Front Bench prior to the statement being made, should have been photocopied and given to Opposition Back Benchers—[Interruption.]—and were clearly visible while my right hon. Friend was making his statement?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Several hon. Members: On a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Just a moment, please. I can hear quite well.

Mr. McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The next business on the Order Paper is the presentation of a Bill by my hon.Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) designed
to provide for the holding of a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.
Given the hostility that was shown this afternoon by Opposition Members to the Secretary of State's announcement, do you agree that we should not waste any further time on Maastricht but instead should give over the whole of tomorrow to debating the question of holding a Scottish referendum, which seems the only way—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should waste no more time on points of order, but let the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) introduce his Bill.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are 11 Scottish Conservative Members and, on the basis of the questions that were asked following the statement, no fewer than five Conservative Back Benchers had the opportunity to ask questions. It is no criticism of you, Madam Speaker—I am aware that other hon. Members were not selected to put questions—but is it a reasonable balance on Scottish issues that virtually every Conservative Back Bencher should have an opportunity to ask a question, whereas a party with nine Members gets only one? May I ask for your consideration to achieve a more even balance in future?

Madam Speaker: I cannot take that any further without other opportunities for debate. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I deal as fairly and justly as I can with the entire House.

Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You know the considerable interest that all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament take in the important statement that we have just heard. I appreciate that you allowed the period for questions to run on for some time and tried to encourage Members to ask just one concise question. I therefore have to ask whether it is in order to allow a Front-Bench spokesman to ramble on at length and be called twice on the same statement.

Madam Speaker: It is not for me to determine whether hon. Members ramble on or get directly to the point.


[HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order, Madam Speaker".] Order. Just a moment, I have not finished yet; show me some courtesy. I am courteous to the House; please be courteous to the Speaker of the House. It is in order for the Front-Bench spokesman to come back for two or three minutes, and that is often allowed.

Mr. Adam Ingram: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in today's Scotsman, where he says that his party has drawn up plans to blow up water pipes. Is there any action that you can take to encourage that party and that hon. Member to desist from the language of terrorism?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Simon Burns: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), Madam Speaker. As you have a justifiably high reputation for defending the interests of Back Benchers, and given that both Ministers and shadow Ministers are for a majority of the time at the Dispatch Box when they wish to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"]—I was in the Chamber listening to the statement. Madam Speaker, whether or not it is in the rules, is it fair, when a number of hon. Members want to ask questions that are particularly important to them and their constituents, for shadow Secretaries of State to take up Back Benchers' time by asking two sets of questions on the same statement, whether it be today or at any other time?

Madam Speaker: Unless the House wishes to change what has been our custom, that will continue.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who mentioned me, did not have the courtesy to tell me that he would be doing so. You need not worry about making any such statement as he suggested, because the SNP would not be involved in any such activities as blowing up pipelines, or anything of that kind. All I can assure you is that I may well be going to night classes to learn plumbing.

Madam Speaker: That is interesting. I have a number of jobs at home, and I shall send a handwritten note to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: The Secretary of State made reference in his statement to the fact that no nominations had been received from any Labour representative for the health boards or NHS trusts. That is wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman seriously misled the House.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he has just said. As I understood it, the hon. Member is making an accusation against the Secretary of State that he seriously misled the House. Have I misunderstood? [Interruption.] Order. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman. Is the hon. Gentleman making an accusation that the Secretary of State seriously misled the House?

Mr. Donohoe: Inadvertently, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Lang: It may be for the convenience of the House if I make it clear that I was referring to communications that I sent to the leader of each party on the Opposition Benches. It may well be that individual Members have made individual submissions to my Department which I have not seen. I was referring to the party approaches.

Madam Speaker: I am very pleased to have that cleared up. Perhaps we can now make some progress.

BILL PRESENTED

REFERENDUM (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Dennis Canavan, supported by Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. George Galloway, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe and Mr. Jimmy Hood, presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

CHESSINGTON COMPUTER CENTRE

That the draft Chessington Computer Centre Trading Fund Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

That the draft Asian Development Bank (Fifth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund and Second Regularised Replenishment of the Technical Assistance Special Fund) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION

That the draft International Finance Corporation (1991 General Capital Increase) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS (WORKERS' COMPENSATION)

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CHILD SUPPORT

That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CHILD BENEFIT

That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

House Purchase (Simplification)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce new procedures for the conveyancing of freehold residential property; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of this Bill is to simplify house purchasing. It would introduce new procedures for the conveyancing of freehold residential property and for connected purposes.
During the summer recess, I was fortunate enough to visit Australia with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is an admirable organisation for the exchange of ideas between people in the Commonwealth. There I came across a scheme which takes the horror out of house buying. It is so simple that one wonders why nobody thought of it before. It was brought to my attention by a number of British people who have settled in Australia and bought a house there after previously having had experience of the trauma that people in this country go through when they buy a house. It is as simple as buying a new or second-hand car—or a yacht, if one had that kind of money. It is a kind of one-stop shopping for a house.
Under this arrangement, people who are looking for a house first of all make up their minds how much money they can afford. If they are going to borrow money, they find that out before they go looking. They then set out to find a house, through an agent, or privately, or through a building society. Having found their house, they get it checked out, if they so wish, before there is any commitment on their part or on the part of the vendor. They then go back to the agent, if they are buying through an agent, and complete a very simple form. The form is designed by the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia, is approved by the Government and is legally binding. It is a contract for the sale of land or a house by offer and acceptance.
Once people have decided on the house they want and the money they have, and are happy about the terms and the condition of the house, they make their offer and sign the form. If the vendor agrees, he or she signs the form. There is now a legally binding commitment, and there is no need for any other kind of rigmarole. The form includes the agreed date on which the transaction will take place, the settlement date. There is no need to pay a deposit; there is no need to get a solicitor, a conveyancer or anyone else involved. A contract has been made between two consenting adults, and it is binding. As I have said, this scheme is not only approved by estate agents and building societies in Australia, but endorsed by the Government.
The advantages of this scheme over the system that we have in this country are very many. To begin with, it cuts out the chains in which many people have half agreed to buy a house and then, later on, begin to change their minds and try to raise or lower the price by gazumping, or whatever the oppposite is—it is not gazundering, but it is something like that. That cannot be done, because once people have decided on a house they are committed, so

long as the vendor agrees the price. It is not possible to change one's mind at a later date. People have to make up their mind and stick to it.
Having decided on the date on which the contract will be completed, that is also a commitment. The purchase time cannot be stretched out while the buyer or vendor looks round for something else. It is a commitment, and the parties involved must go through with it.
It also cuts out the practice of people making bogus offers for houses. Apparently, some people look at and make offers for a number of houses, hoping that the vendor of one of them will perhaps lower his price. But all the other people to whom they have made offers are then disappointed, and may find that that affects their own house purchase arrangements. This scheme cuts that out, because once people have made an offer, they sign the form. If the vendors accept it, that is it. Buyers cannot go around committing themselves to half a dozen people and then letting them down.
The Bill would remove most of the haggling after an offer has been made. Almost everyone who has sold or is trying to sell a house knows the awful feeling when, having agreed a price through a solicitor or privately, the buyer comes back to say that he has changed his mind, that he cannot raise the money, or that there is something wrong with the drains and he wants a reduction. The commitment has to be made by the buyer; once the form is signed, that is it.
The Bill would take most of the angst out of buying a house. It would make it as simple as buying a second-hand car. Buyers would make their bids in the knowledge that they could not wriggle out of the deal.
The scheme is not dissimilar from that in Scotland, which is excellent. It involves people making bids in a form of auction. Until the bids are opened and the highest bidder is discovered, no one knows who will get the house. I believe that my proposal is a little better than the Scottish scheme.
Most people have horror stories about trying to buy houses; if they have not had a bad experience themselves, they know of friends or relations who have. The scheme will take the horror out of house buying. The scheme is so simple that one wonders why nobody thought of it before. There is no reason why we should not adopt it in this country. The proposed scheme would need the sanction of Government. I wish to introduce the Bill because contracts have to be legally binding on both parties.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. David Evennett.

HOUSE PURCHASE (SIMPLIFICATION)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to introduce new procedures for the conveyancing of freehold residential property; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 March, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Manufacturing Industry and Unemployment

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House notes that, since the present Prime Minister took office manufacturing output has fallen, manufacturing investment has fallen and manufacturing employment has fallen; recalls that, in every year until Her Majesty's Government took office Britain ran a surplus in manufactured trade and that for each of the last 10 years Britain has registered a deficit in manufactured trade; records its concern that, since 1979 Britain has lost 2·75 million jobs in manufacturing, leading to the present unacceptable level of mass unemployment; condemns the policies which have resulted in over nine million citizens experiencing unemployment since the present Prime Minister took office; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce measures to stimulate investment in technology and training to produce a coherent strategy for industry, and to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and has put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.

Mr. Cook: Last week, the Prime Minister seized the attention of the nation with his declaration:
I passionately believe that we need an expanding industrial base.
Many of us would have regarded the need for an expanding industrial base as a self-evident proposition. What made the declaration arrest the attention of the nation was that the industrial base of Britain has been contracting ever since the Prime Minister became a Member of Parliament.
Since the Prime Minister entered the House in 1979, manufacturing's share of GDP has fallen faster in this country than it has in other nations. It has fallen three times faster than in Germany, and 12 times faster than in Japan. Manufacturing output has been virtually static over the same period, in which the right hon. Gentleman, with his passionate beliefs, supported, and even led, a Conservative Government. Manufacturing in Britain has grown more slowly since 1979 than in five of the six other members of G7, and in 18 of the 21 other members of the OECD.
Last week, when the interviewer reminded the Prime Minister that we used to be told that all this did not matter, and that, when the last engineer locked the last factory, the service sector would be there to keep us all in employment, the Prime Minister replied:
I didn't agree with it. I was a minority view.
I have to report to the House that I have searched for where that minority view was expressed by the Prime Minister. His view was not just a minority view: it was a persecuted and suppressed view, that was forced to stay underground for fear of being quashed. Nowhere do we find it expressed before last week.
The word "manufacturing" did not even cross the Prime Minister's lips in the two Budget speeches which he

made as Chief Secretary. There were no measures for manufacturing, and no mention of manufacturing, in the Budget which he presented as Chancellor. There was no mention of it in the Queen's Speech last year, or in the Prime Minister's speech in that debate. Nor was there any mention of manufacturing as recently as last year, in the Prime Minister's speech to the Tory party conference, although he found time for a novel cadenza on the theme that the road to recovery is lined with motorway service toilets.
I have not found any expression of a minority view. It is always possible that a Nationalist Member might have, at the back of a filing cabinet, a handwritten note signed "John", telling him or her that the demands for manufacturing industry are reasonable and that he will do all he can to deliver them, but the rest of us who do not do secret deals with Tory Governments do not know about it.
We know about the views of the President of the Board of Trade. He voiced a minority view in the 1980s. He wrote whole books in which he expressed trenchant, powerful views on the importance of manufacturing, on the need for intervention and on the case for a powerful Department of Trade and Industry. When a journalist put one of those passages to him last autumn, he replied:
You've been reading all those books I wrote when I was on the Back Benches. You mustn't believe what a Back Bencher says.
It is a close-run thing, but I must say to the President that, if I have to choose between believing a Government Back Bencher or a Minister, I give the balance of advantage to the Back Bencher.
One can tell how far the President's views on manufacturing have declined since those books. One can tell how they have been marginalised since he joined the Government again. One can tell it in the evidence before the House in the amendment tabled in the President's name, which does not list one programme to support industry, one industry which the Government have saved or one project which they have launched in civil research.
The amendment reads as if it was drafted in the Treasury. It might as well have been, because there is not a single measure in it which has been taken by the DTI. It contains the hallmark of this Treasury of Micawbers. It contains the 57th sighting of recovery over the horizon. I am not clear why the Government now need to promise a recovery for industry. A couple of months ago, the Chancellor produced a report on manufacturing industry in which he told us that recovery had already taken place, and that what had happened to manufacturing industry was the success story of the Government. That prompted the director general of the CBI to write:
If the Government really believes that all is for the best in British manufacturing while we run an alarming trade deficit in the depths of recession, we have a problem. What else might they believe? That public spending is under control?
The amendment tells us that the Government have set the framework for recovery. Do they ever look at what has happened to manufacturing investment over the time that they have been in office? In not one single year since 1979 has manufacturing investment reached the level it was at in 1979 as a percentage of GNP. If manufacturing investment had stayed at that level throughout the past 13 years, we would have had £34,000 million invested in new machines, in new technology and in modern factories. That is the damage that their policies have done to the industrial base of the country.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Cook: I do not know whether to believe the hon. Gentleman as a Back Bencher, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy in giving way. Bearing in mind the fact that he seems to think that the decline in manufacturing, as he wrongly puts it, started in 1979, is he aware that, between 1974 and 1979, Britain lost no fewer than 735,000 jobs in manufacturing—the worst record in the industrial world with the exception of Spain?

Mr. Cook: I had criticisms of the last Labour Government, and I voiced them at the time. (HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not wait until the Prime Minister departed before voicing them. That Labour Government did not have the cushion of £60,000 million of oil revenue, they maintained a surplus in manufacturing throughout their period in office, kept unemployment to below half the level that this Government have ever achieved and had an increase in manufacturing investment greater than anything that this Government, with the advantage of oil, have achieved. When I look back on that record, I realise what the economic strategy of that Labour Government achieved.
If the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) participates in the debate, I hope that he will refer to the fact that in his constituency unemployment has increased 91 per cent. in the past three years. If he expresses his views on the future of industry and the economy, I hope that he will do it on behalf of his constituents who have been made unemployed by this Government, because those are the people whose concerns we are voicing in the debate.
I was referring to figures on manufacturing investment. In every year of that Labour Government, there was an increase in net manufacturing investment. We have to adjust investment figures to take into account the rate at which old plant is scrapped. In only three out of the past 13 years have the Government managed to provide more manufacturing investment than the rate at which machinery has been scrapped. In every one of the other 10 years, more machines have been scrapped than new ones installed. That is why our industrial capacity is getting smaller.
Behind the abstract cash figures, there are real factory closures. In 1979, when the Conservatives took office, there were 908 factories with more than 1,000 employees. There are now only 383 such factories. Last year alone, one in four factories in London shut. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but to those who worked in those factories it was no laughing matter. That is why it is so facile for the Government amendment to say that they have put the framework for growth in place.
Those factories have closed. We cannot pull the dust sheets off the machinery and kick it back into life. The machines were put under the hammer, and the best of them went to competitor nations. The skilled work force, teams of people who knew how to work together and do their job, has gone. Putting those people back to work will be more difficult than buying machinery off the shelf.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, whose analysis is familiar, if a little dated. Does he not realise, for example, that, in advanced countries in the modern world,


the right way to measure the performance of manufacturing in this or any other OECD country is by output and productivity? There is a structural shift in all manufacturing sectors in all our partner countries, and, as a result of automation, it is away from manufacturing employment, towards services and other employment. If the hon. Gentleman uses that measurement of output, does he acknowledge that, since 1979, which is the start of the period in the motion, manufacturing output has risen by 7 per cent?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—in Britain, it rose by 7 per cent. But in Japan it rose by 70 per cent., and in Germany it rose by 40 per cent. We have had the lowest increase in output in the OECD, and the second lowest in the G7 countries. I gave the hon. Gentleman the figures earlier, and I shall give him another figure to bring him up to date. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the rise in unemployment in the past three years has been 240 per cent. I shall give way to him again if he can tell me in what other OECD or G7 country there has been such an increase in unemployment in the past three years. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging in genuine debate. It is simply the case that unemployment was satisfactorily low in my constituency throughout the 1980s. Alas, it has risen rather sharply, but I am confident that the Government's policies will put us back on track for more jobs and more activity.

Mr. Cook: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are bright enough to spot that there is something odd and imbalanced about an equation showing that the Government's policies will put them back to work. Of course, the Government's policies had nothing to do with putting them out of work in the first place. There are now more than 4,000 unemployed people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I admit that that is not as many as in my constituency, but such unemployment is entirely novel in his constituency and in the areas which, we were told at the last election, would be the boom areas of Britain. They are now the unemployed areas of Britain.
On the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), we used to have the Leyland tractor factory. When it was built it was the largest machine shop in Britain. It has gone. The machines were stripped, the cranes were scrapped and the sheds were demolished. There is no point in telling the railings that surround the wasteland of grass and concrete there that the fundamentals of the economy are coming right and that production can be resumed. That factory has gone for ever, and the communities that have seen such factories close have a simple, traditional view of the Prime Minister's economic policies. It is that we should try to understand them a little less and try to condemn them a little more. But who are we to condemn?
We are less unhappy to condemn the Prime Minister's predecessor, and we do so with some credibility, because we condemned her economic policies while she was still there. I will put in a good word for the noble Lady of Kesteven. She does not deserve all the blame that is being heaped upon her. She went two and a half years and a general election ago, and the present Prime Minister has been in office all that time. Since he took over, 750,000 manufacturing jobs have gone, exactly the figure that the


hon. Member for Amber Valley quoted for the entire period of the last Labour Government, which was twice as long.
Every six weeks, British manufacturing has lost the equivalent of the entire work force of ICI. Those jobs have been lost in the companies that formed the backbone of our industrial economy. Within the past quarter alone, Ford, British Aerospace, Lucas and Marconi have announced redundancies. Last Friday, Belling, a household name since 1912, went into liquidation. On Thursday, Rolls-Royce is due to announce results, amid speculation that it will also announce 2,000 redundancies.
Those are the companies on which we depend to provide the exports we need to pay our way in the world. Their results and their difficulties must be seen against our trade figures. From the industrial revolution to 1982, we had a manufacturing surplus in every year. In every year since 1982, we have had a deficit in manufactures. We now have a deficit with western and eastern Europe and with north, central and south America. The only continent with which we have a trade surplus is Africa.
We cannot run a permanent deficit with the rest of the world. We certainly cannot run it when the oil runs out, and the Government's biggest failure is that they have wasted a whole decade in which they had the cushion of oil that could have enabled Britain to restructure and invest in its future. They could have done that if they had listened to what we urged upon them—action on investment, not just tax breaks for the big companies but grants to the small companies making no profit and unable to claim tax allowance.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that present Labour party policy is that increasing taxation would have a bad effect on the country at a time of recession, whereas this time last year precisely the opposite was being urged? What is the position?

Mr. Cook: We await with bated breath what will happen next week. I look forward the hon. Gentleman's intervention in the Budget speech. I put the question back to the hon. Gentleman. I can well understand his concern about the recession, because unemployment in his constituency has risen 177 per cent. in the past three years. There are now in his constituency twice as many people unemployed and unable to pay any tax increases that the hon. Gentleman might think of.
We also urged the Government to end the rip-off of the business expansion scheme, to focus on industry instead of on speculation in property. We urged on the Government action to strengthen the regions, to bring in regional development agencies, to work with local industry and local communities, to build on the strengths of local economies and to fill the local gaps in investment.
We urged on the Government action to develop skills, to bring in a training levy, so that everyone would have a chance of training even if an employer wanted to duck expenditure on training. We urged on the Government action to balance the priorities between finance and industry, so that we would not have the perverse priorities of the past two years, in which dividends have risen by 20 per cent. while investment has fallen by 13 per cent.
We also urged action to protect successful industrial companies from being taken over by hostile predators, so that managers need not constantly look over their shoulders at their share price and divert into keeping up dividends the money that should go into investment, research and training.
That programme was repeatedly published and repeatedly argued. Ministers never listened. Instead, they pursued policies that have compounded the damage of their economic programme. They deregulated the bus industry, and manufacturing orders for heavy buses collapsed. In 1980, 3,000 heavy buses were registered. In 1991, 600 were registered. Try telling the people who used to make those buses in Preston and Workington that the Government support manufacturing industry.
The Government privatised British Telecom, and Britain moved from a surplus in trade in telecommunications of £250 million to a deficit of exactly as much last year.

Mr. Rod Richards: What effect would raising taxation have on the manufacturing sector?

Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have proposed to cut tax on manufacturing industry by enhanced capital allowances. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect, the last Labour Government ran capital allowances for industry throughout their period. Capital allowances were abolished by this Government in a Budget that was presented on the basis that the service industries would substitute for what was being cut from capital taxation.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I shall return to my speech.
Not only did the Government cause the collapse in the bus production industry, not only have they turned a surplus into a deficit in telecommunications: they sold British Rail Engineering Ltd. In the past three years, imports of railway rolling stock have risen by 300 per cent.
The President of the Board of Trade has made his very own contribution to the gallery of policies undermining British industry. His largest initiative since taking office has been to try to close 31 pits without once considering the impact on the mining engineering industry, where another 20,000 jobs would go in manufacturing—in a manufacturing industry that was competitive internationally but could not survive its domestic market going. It has started already. MECO, the mining equipment company, laid off 300 workers last week because it could not survive the loss of orders from the pits.
The right hon. Gentleman's problem is that he has commitments to live up to, and they do not sound as good now as when he put them in his speeches. There is the demand that he made in 1986 when he roamed the wilderness—or at any rate the High Peak business club—when he called for the Department of Trade and Industry
to become the leading British ministry to spearhead industrial regeneration and to be an equal partner with the Treasury.
Well, the right hon. Gentleman is there now. He is the head of that leading British Ministry. Where is the equal partnership with the Treasury?
In January, the Treasury cut interest rates. Three hours later, the President was asked by a BBC correspondent to


comment on it. The head of the leading British Ministry, the equal partner with the Treasury, replied, "What interest rate cut?" The President has had to put up with some ill-natured fun from people saying that nobody had told him. But, for myself, I do not think that it is important that, having taken the decision, nobody thought to tell him afterwards. For me, what is important, what is revealing, is that nobody consulted him about the decision before it was taken; that, on this important matter of economic policy, the Department of Trade and Industry was never consulted.
There is other evidence that the Government give no priority to industry and no priority to the Department of Trade and Industry. That evidence is in the budget of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Under the heading
Measures relating to individual industries and other programmes",
we find a budget that will fall from £470 million three years ago to £9 million three years from now. That is a cut of 98 per cent. Not much room for intervention before every meal there.
The Treasury has put the right hon. Gentleman on something of a slimmer's diet. The total budget for his Department three years from now falls through the £1 billion floor. He will then tie for bottom place in the spending table of Cabinet Departments; not in equal partnership with the Treasury, but in equal partnership with the Department of National Heritage. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have a budget exactly three times the entire budget of the Department of Trade and Industry.
I have no doubt that there are important spending programmes at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; that there are, no doubt, subsidies necessary to rural life welcomed by many Conservative Members present who oppose subsidies to manufacturing industry. But no one has claimed that, when recovery comes, it will be led by agriculture. We have not reached that stage of de-industrialisation, even under this Government. There is something deeply perverse about the priorities of a Government who will cheerfully cough up three times the spending on farmers that they will provide for the total industrial economy of Britain.
There is a simple test of whether the Government are now ready to change those priorities. There is a simple way of telling whether the Prime Minister means it when he tells us that he passionately believes in expanding manufacturing industry. Will they intervene, as the Governments of Holland and Belgium have intervened, to save Leyland DAF? After all, we have, or at any rate we had, more DAF workers than Holland, or Holland and Belgium put together—skilled workers, people whose skills we need if we hope to become competitive in the future. Half the output from Leyland DAF is exported.

Mr. Nicholls: No one will buy the trucks.

Mr. Cook: Half the output is exported. It is bought by people outside Britain, giving Britain £250 million. They are buying the trucks.
Nor can we afford to lose the suppliers to Leyland DAF —6,000 of them. The print-out as applied to Leyland DAF takes this huge amount of paper to record. There is one in nearly every Tory constituency. There are suppliers to DAF in the constituencies of the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Transport and the chairman of the Tory party. If they thought that Leyland

DAF was not an issue for them, they had better think again. Yet, despite that intimate link to their own constituencies, what a contrast in industrial strategy.
In Holland, the Government are taking part in rescue talks, leaning on the banks, calling together all parties, really intervening to find a solution and investing in the company because they have confidence in its future. Here, we have a Government who have left it to the receiver to salvage what he can.
At Question Time last month, the President told me that his Minister of State had been in touch with his opposite number in the Dutch Government. The President will be aware that I tabled a private notice question asking what form that in-touchness took. He replied that, on 4 February, the Minister of State spoke to the Dutch Minister on the phone. The talks about the rescue package lasted eight weeks before they collapsed. It is five weeks since the receiver was called in.
The Ministerial contact that the Government can list in a parliamentary answer is one telephone call. Is it arty surprise that more jobs are going in Britain than in Holland? Will it be any surprise if British industry has difficulty succeeding in the single European market, when the industries of every other country get the kind of partnership that Holland has shown and the industries of Britain get none?
We all pay a cost for the decline of Britain's manufacturing base, but those who pay the highest cost are those who have lost their jobs and the young people who have lost their opportunity to get jobs. In 1979, more than 7 million people were employed in Britain's manufacturing industries. The number today is 4.5 million. For every 10 jobs in manufacturing when the Government came to office, four have gone.
The final irony is that, while the Government will not intervene to save jobs before a factory closes, they have to intervene when the workers are sacked, by picking up the bill for unemployment. The cost is £9,000 a year for every unemployed person—£27 billion at the present rate of unemployment. Surely it would be better to put that money into the economy, to keep factories open, than to pick up the bill when they close.
Unemployment is a tragedy wherever it strikes. It is corrosive to men over the age of 55 who find that they may never work again. It is devastating to the lone parent who loses a part-time job that can make the difference between survival and destitution. Most of all, unemployment is a tragedy when it happens to young people, because it sours their hope and saps their energy. Unemployment among those below the age of 25 is double the national average.
As I was working on my speech on Sunday, I was interrupted by the arrival of six unemployed teenagers from my constituency who had nowhere to sleep that night. They were not dumb, feckless or aggressive. They had gone through an exhaustive list of agencies, and had applied correctly to every agency that they could that day. I have to report that I failed them. I spent an hour telephoning the same agencies, and I received the same answer—that all of them had been full for the past fortnight and had nowhere to put anybody else, because they had so many other teenagers in the same circumstances.
I was struck by how different were their opportunities from those that I and others of my generation enjoyed at the same age. Teenagers of my generation went to college, got a job, or started an apprenticeship—I cannot


remember the last time that I met an apprentice. To teenagers of my generation, the idea that six of us would end up without a job and a home would have sounded like pure fantasy.
There are now 800,000 people under the age of 25 without a job—enough to populate Newcastle, Nottingham and Norwich, and leave enough over to populate half of Northampton. When we express our concern for those young unemployed, we are accused of talking Britain down. We do not raise the case of those young people to talk them down. We raise it because we know their potential, know that they have natural energy, and know their need for realistic goals and ambitions. We understand that it is the talents and energy of those young people on which we must build this nation's future. That is something it is not wise to understand less.
The nation that does not understand that is a nation without a future. That is why we will tonight condemn a Government who have failed to invest in that future.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the importance of the manufacturing base to the wealth creation process in this country; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on setting in place the basic framework for economic recovery—low inflation, low interest rates, good industrial relations and a low tax regime—supported by measures in the Autumn Statement; applauds Her Majesty's Government on its success in attracting more inward investment than any of the United Kingdom's Community partners; acknowledges the widely reported signs of recovery in business confidence; recognises the unparalleled opportunities to help individuals to get back to work; and looks forward with confidence to the prospect of a return to sustained growth.'.
It is not possible to overstate the trivialisation of the critical issues that the House is debating to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) returns time and again. Everybody knows that the trading world—our major customers—has been experiencing a significant and prolonged recession. The political complexion of the Government of our trading partners makes no difference—whether it be America, which has gone through a very difficult period but is now recovering; Germany, which is now heading down; right-wing Governments; or France and Spain, which have considerable economic difficulties. No nation broadly the equivalent of our own has been able to stand apart from that recession process.
As the House knows full well, with a nation such as ours, which has such a high proportion of its gross domestic product exported, it is utterly naive and totally irresponsible to try to give the impression that somehow this country's economy can stand apart from the impact of that recession across the world.
It is characteristic of the systematic policy of the hon. Member for Livingston of undermining this country that he seeks to parade our problems as uniquely British and uniquely related to the late 1980s. The hon. Gentleman has become one of industry's greatest salesmen. The problem is that it is the industrial interests of France, Germany, America and Japan that he is selling—and selling at the expense of British industry, British investment, and British jobs.
In the emotional end to his speech, the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the problems of Leyland DAF. I will apologise to no one for the concern that we share for the problems of Leyland DAF. The hon. Gentleman totally fails to understand that the Dutch and Belgian Governments had to act so quickly because under the rules of receivership in those countries, it is not possible for the receiver to use money that is the product of the business. Instead, the receiver must look for outside funds. In this country, the receiver can use the funds of the business to keep it in existence.
A British bank provided the money that enabled the receiver to continue the activities of those businesses, whereas the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the position taken by the British banks was to suggest that they had pulled the rug from under Leyland DAF. There he was again, undermining the British banks—just as he undermines British industry.
The most dispiriting aspect of today's debate is the wording of the Opposition motion. It contains not a word of praise for British companies, and no recognition of a single person out there who is selling, manufacturing, marketing or exporting to help Britain to win. Nothing at all—except the carping, whingeing criticism of the hon. Member for Livingston, whose closest experience of the entrepreneurial society was his role as campaign co-ordinator in 1985, when he tried to sell the Labour party to the British people—and laid the foundations for the second worst defeat in the party's history. The hon. Gentleman's capacity to exploit the electorate's fears in the search of profit for the Labour party is utterly staggering.
There are no credible policies left for the left. I reject absolutely the gross distortion of the 1980s that the Opposition motion parades before the House, because it is not true. It is not true to say that our manufacturing industry is collapsing. Despite the recession, output remains more than one fifth higher than at the bottom of the last recession in 1981. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The only fair comparison is to take the bottom of a recession with the bottom of a recession, the top of the peak with the top of the peak.
Investment is more than one third higher, productivity is two thirds higher, and exports are four fifths higher.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the early 1980s, south Humberside suffered massive structural unemployment from the decline in the fishing and steel industries? Will my right hon. Friend share with the House and with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) his visit to my constituency just 10 days ago, when he performed the topping-out ceremony for the new Kimberly-Clark factory, which has £12 million of DTI finance, and at which 700 people will be newly employed with effect from next year, rising to 2,500? Is it not the case that unemployment in my constituency has fallen from about 6,000 in 1987 to 4,500 and that it is now below the national average? Is not that an example of the achievements of the regeneration of British industry?

Mr. Heseltine: That is what I call speaking for England. [Interruption.] I am certainly not prepared to share my experience of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency with the hon. Member for Livingston, who would be embarrassed to hear of the success that we saw there.
Much more important, the motion reveals how little the Labour party understands the achievements of the past decade—how little it understands the realities of world competition, or the degree of change that the 1990s will continue to demand. Let us remember—although it is a sickening prospect—the end of the 1970s. Then, this country had a reputation as the sick man of Europe. We had been losing our share of world trade in manufactured goods for 30 years, and probably longer; we were overtaxed, and we were over-nationalised. We had failed to regenerate our small industrial and commercial companies, we had inadequate training, we were under-educating our children and we were gripped in an inflationary spiral.
To make matters worse, we had an appalling industrial relations record. Our managers could not manage: they faced strikes in their own factories, in the factories of their suppliers and in the public services. In the starkest terms, British industry was uncompetitive. That was the inheritance that our party came to deal with in 1979.
Today, all that the hon. Member for Livingston can say, half apologetically, is, "I had my doubts about the record of the last Labour Government." At least I said what my doubts were when I was on the Back Benches; it took the hon. Gentleman a long time to work out what his were.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, at the very end of the 1960s —after a long period of Labour government—Michael Shanks, the guru of the Labour party, published a Penguin book called "The Stagnant Society"? That book bore true testimony to Labour's period of office.
As my right hon. Friend may have noticed, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) completely ignored the underlying legacy with which British industry was faced: the appalling reforms forced on our school system during that period of Labour Government and the fact that the proportion of 18-year-olds in higher education had fallen under Labour—the only time since the war when it had done so.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out Labour's critical failure to improve our education standards.
In 1979, the problems that we faced were deep seated and long term. In large measure, they were a deliberate consequence of the Labour party's policies. We always made it clear that the Labour party, its policies, its manifestos and its dogma were a disaster; now, even Labour itself has come to recognise that those policies are a disaster. The party leader himself has realised that change must come, simply because his party's policies have proved to be a disaster. The problem for him is that his party now thinks that he is a disaster as well.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No.
How can the hon. Member for Livingston possibly have the nerve to come to the House and lecture us on industrial policy, when the whole House knows that the closest thing to an industrial policy in the Labour party is an apology for the past and a promise that it will not do the same all over again?
Let me set the 1980s in context. I shall begin wall industrial relations. Labour resisted every step of reform as it fought to preserve the privileges of the trade unions which provided its funds. What is the result? The result is that this country has the best industrial relations for 100 years.
Then there is privatisation. There was never a policy more calculated to destroy the motivation and resilience of an industry than the policy of transferring that industry's ownership to the state. In state hands, industries are subsidised by taxpayers, suffocated by political and bureaucratic control and denied the chance to compete overseas. Their investment programmes are curtailed to meet the public expenditure constraints of the national Government. That was our inheritance—and the greatest single justification for all the criticisms that we have made over the years is the fact that Labour now has not the nerve to say that it will ever introduce nationalisation again.
So unaware is the hon. Member for Livingston of the damage that nationalisation did to this country that he points to my Department's budget which has been cut. Why has it been cut? Because the losses of the nationalised industries have been turned into the profits of the privatised industries. What are those industries doing? I will tell the House what they are doing.

Mr. Chisholm: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Heseltine: In 1979—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary, and polite, for Ministers to give way to Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely up to the Member who has the Floor to decide who to give way to.

Mr. Heseltine: I am, as a matter of custom, always polite. I will give way to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

Mrs. Mahon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember Mr. Catton, from Eliot Machine Tools in Halifax, who wrote asking whether he could intervene when Customs and Excise—quite wrongly—fined the firm. It is struggling in the present climate.
That happened just after the right hon. Gentleman made his speech about intervening before breakfast, dinner, tea and so forth. Will he now tell us why he wrote back to Mr. Catton saying that he could not possibly intervene? The company has now had to be taken over.

Mr. Heseltine: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, if Customs and Excise pursue outstanding bills, that must be a matter for them. It would be utterly wrong for Ministers to interfere with the course of their legal processes. [Interruption.] This is a novel development. The Labour party clearly believes that it is right for Ministers to intervene in the course of justice. That is a chill warning of what we might expect if it ever returned to power.
I was speaking of the transformation of the loss-making nationalised industries. In 1979, those industries cost the Exchequer £3 billion, some 1·5 per cent. of gross domestic product. Last year, the privatised industries paid £2 billion in taxes. That is why my Department's budget has changed so dramatically.
Moreover, those companies—now in the private sector—are out in the world trading place, winning contracts for Britain. In 1982, the United Kingdom produced 14 million tonnes of crude steel and exported 3 million tonnes of finished steel. Last year, we produced 16 million tonnes of crude steel and exported 8 million tonnes of finished steel. We now have a trade surplus of about 3 million tonnes, compared with a deficit in 1982. Not the least reason for that is the fact that British Steel now produces a tonne of steel in under five man hours, compared with over 13 in 1979.
Many of the privatised industries tell a similar success story. We do not hear about that from Labour.

Mr. Chisholm: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No, I am not going to give way. I am going to tell the House how well the privatised industries are doing. British Gas, in partnership with Agip—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) must not half get up and shout across the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time.

Mr. Heseltine: That is characteristic of Opposition Members. All that I want to do is to parade before the House the success of British companies. All that the Opposition want to do is to make sure that nobody listens.

Mr. Chisholm: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No, I am not going to give way. I am going to explain to the House the success of British companies. I do not mind how much the Opposition like or dislike it—I am going to do it.
British Gas, in partnership with Agip, is investing over £4 billion in the next 10 years on the exploration and development of a huge new gas field in Kazakhstan. British Telecom is now one of the world's foremost telecommunication companies. Last year, it won a contract worth £350 million to run a telecoms network for the New South Wales Government.

Mr. Chisholm: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the House for about a year, and I seek your guidance. When I was elected to this place I thought that I was coming to a debating Chamber. Can you please tell me how I can turn this House into a debating Chamber? I have never seen anything like this throughout the past year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is in order. We are having a fulsome debate.

Mr. Heseltine: The problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there have to be two sides to a debate, but the Opposition have no case to make.
Thames Water, as part of a consortium, has won a £448 million Turkish water plant construction contract. Instead of monopolistic Government ownership, in addition to the profits and the contracts, there are now some 9 million individual shareholders—three times the number there were in 1979. The privatisation programme was the second major change that was brought about in the 1980s, to the immense benefit of the national economy.
My responsibilites include one of the last of the nationalised industries. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the coal review. I have always made it clear to the House that there are no easy solutions to this intractable set of problems.
At the end of January, the Trade and Industry Select Committee produced its report on British energy policy and the market for coal. I pay tribute to the amount of detailed work that the Committee put into its report. The Government will publish their detailed response shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The Select Committee has recognised that the central issue is the market for coal. It makes no sense for British Coal to continue to produce coal that no one wants to buy.
The stark facts are these. Over 30 million tonnes of coal are stocked at the generators. Over 10 million tonnes are stocked at the pithead. There is enough coal for the rest of this year without another tonne being mined. Well over £1 billion of coal is stocked in mountains that get bigger with every shift that is worked.
The Select Committee's central conclusion is that it should be possible to find a market for an additional 16 million tonnes of deep-mined coal in each of the next five years. It suggests that the Government should require the generators to contract for an additional 5 million tonnes on top of that.
The Select Committee is right to see the size of the market as the central issue. It estimated total electricity demand in England and Wales over the next five years as equivalent to 586 million tonnes of coal. Caminus, the consultants who advised my Department and whose report I have published, puts the figure at only 565 million tonnes. British Coal puts it lower still—at 563 million tonnes. These differences may seem small, but they remove one quarter of the additional market of 80 million tonnes which the Select Committee believes that it has identified.
No one can predict with accuracy the precise scale of a market five years ahead. The Select Committee's figures are at the very top of the range. The critical question that we face, therefore, is the extent to which private sector companies will contract for coal. Those companies will form their own judgment about the size of the market.
The fuel mix is equally important. I note that the Select Committee had considered carefully the extent to which the market for coal could be increased by interfering with gas or nuclear. I have noted with interest that the Select Committee has come out against that. This has no doubt been greeted with relief by many hon. Members' constituents whose jobs would be put at risk. I have said it before and I shall say it again: we cannot interfere to protect jobs in one part of the economy without losing jobs and investment elsewhere.
One of the most attractive of the Select Committee proposals to many hon. Members is to restrict electricity supplied from France via the French interconnector. I have looked into that issue extremely carefully. I myself shared with the Select Committee the concern to examine again the extent to which the scope for additional sales of coal rests upon reducing imports of electricity. I have also taken legal advice on the matter, a summary of which I intend to make public.
The position is clear. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will remember, measures to restrict imports of electricity across the interconnector would be contrary to article 30 of the treaty of Rome. It would also put the Government at


considerable financial risk in relation to indemnities given at the time of electricity privatisation and reported to the House.
The effect of removing Electricité de France's non-leviable status, as the Select Committee recommends, would be highly uncertain and may lead to EDF being allowed access to the same premium prices available to Nuclear Electric and financed through the levy. The regional electricity companies would in turn have to be put under an obligation to purchase electricity from EDF. Far from reducing imports from France, this would reinforce their position, and our consumers would end up paying more for their electricity.
I therefore have to tell the House that the proposal by the Select Committee to reduce the amount of electricity coming across the interconnector from the present 6.5 million tonnes of coal equivalent to zero, or anywhere near that, is not an option, but we are still looking at whether anything might be done. To this end, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will go to Paris tomorrow to follow up the conversations that we have been conducting with the French Government.

Dr. Michael Clark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No, not at the moment.
I now turn to the suggestion that the additional tonnages that the Select Committee believes that it has identified can be purchased through a subsidy at a total cost of £500 million. This is intended to reflect the difference between British and world prices. It is an interesting approach. The Select Committee suggests that this could be achieved at a cost of no more than £5 per tonne, but I regret that I cannot agree with the Select Committee's assessment of the likely costs. I am continuing to discuss these matters with the generators.
Finally, I turn to the proposal that we should legislate to require the generators to take coal at a price and in a quantity that they would judge to be against their commercial interests. I have to say, at least to my hon. Friends, that this is not an attractive proposition. I have never hidden my regard for the immense amount of work that the Select Committee undertook, but many intractable problems remain to be resolved. The Government have to weigh all the consequences. I expect to set out the Government's reply to the Select Committee and to publish the White Paper shortly.

Dr. Michael Clark: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Michael Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Of course, the detail of the Select Committee report will be debated at another time, but my right hon. Friend referred to the legal position on importing electricity from France—we shall consider that matter later—and I therefore invite him to consider the legal position on our using the French grid system, within the Common Market spirit of good will, to export electricity to Italy and Spain. If that does not happen, the French will have the prerogative to export electricity to us while we are denied the opportunity to export to France and Spain, because the French will wish to keep that market, too.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is well informed on such matters. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Minister for

Energy will discuss that and a range of other matters with the French Government tomorrow. I also reassure the House that there have already been consultations and discussions with the French on that matter.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To take up the point of the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), does the President of the Board of Trade accept that nobody suggests that we should terminate the interconnector with France or reduce its use—certainly the Select Committee does not suggest that? The suggestion is that it should be operated as was intended in the first place, as a two-way exchange of electricity, which provides us with a market that would substitute up to 6 million tonnes of coal equivalent a year. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is being asked simply to negotiate free and fair trade rather than allowing the French to have it all their own way?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to consider the point that he is pursuing in the light of the legal advice about the exact position. The contracts are long standing and subject to the law. The hon. Gentleman will want to consider the matter further.
I will go back to what I was saying, dealing with the record of the 1980s—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: Is it about coal?

Mr. Mackinlay: No, it is about the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is going backwards.

Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way. I must make progress.

Mr. Derek Enright: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I must now make progress.
A critical component of a healthy economy is the vibrancy of the small and medium-sized company. Today at last, Britain is generating small and medium-sized businesses. When the Government were elected in 1979, there were 1·75 million of them; today there are 1 million more, which grew and developed in the 1980s. Even during the recession of 1992 about 400,000 business start-ups took place.
Why did that happen? It happened because we changed the tax regime to enable it to happen. Changes in corporation tax, in inheritance tax and in income tax made it pay to invest, to hold on, to take risks and to start businesses. It left discretionary wealth in the hands of people who were prepared to invest it in the enterprise culture. It is from the small and medium-sized company sector of the economy that jobs come.
The hon. Member for Livingston made a great deal of the issue of unemployment—but let us consider the facts. Let me remind him that, over the last economic cycle, in 1979–90, the work force in employment grew by 1·5 million, twice as fast as in the rest of the EC. Even in recession, employment now is almost 1·5 million higher than it was 10 years ago. We still have a higher proportion of the adult population in work than almost any other European country.

Mr. MacKinlay: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: Let me put the heart of the matter to the hon. Member for Livingston. Has he any idea of the dilemma that our companies face? When he visits large companies, does he ever even look to see the changes that are there staring him in the face? He can walk round any company and ask any management; he can talk to the people employed there. There will be only one story, one explanation, one option. Fewer people are employed, in the drive for those companies to survive in an ever more competitive marketplace. Fewer people are employed as investment—the very investment that the hon. Gentleman keeps talking about—replaces people's jobs.
For example, we are producing 300,000 more vehicles a year than we were 10 years ago—but 100,000 fewer people are employed in the industry producing them.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Although I have been in the House only for a few months, I worked in business for the previous 18 years, 15 of which—during the 1970s and 1980s—I spent selling the products of British manufacturing industry against the competition. I totally support what my right hon. Friend says about the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry. Is he aware that only last November the shadow Chancellor said in The Guardian that in Labour's view the public sector would be the engine of growth? How out of date can the Labour party get?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Let me add to it: the other day the shadow Chancellor, looking at the success of the privatised utilities, argued that there should be a windfall tax. The Labour party does not have the money to renationalise businesses, so now it wants to tax them into subjection. It is the old story—when Labour Members see success they want to tax it—before breakfast, before lunch, before tea, and before dinner. Then they get up the next day and start taxing it all over again. That is when Labour Members are really happy, destroying success at every turn, every day, all the time.
It is our duty to tell companies that they have our support in the battle to survive, even if that means telling the people the truth about the nature of change and the process of moving from job to job. Let us be clear—

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
The Government strategy is clear.

Mr. Mackinlay: What about the south-east?

Mr. Heseltine: What about a bit of silence, for a minute?
We must set the conditions for growth and pursue competitiveness over the whole range of Government policy. That means low inflation, low interest rates, a competitive pound and support for exports, higher education, research and development and for training.
Now I come to the next great success of the 1980s. The United Kingdom received one third of all inward investment into the EC in 1991. We have 41 per cent. of Japanese inward investment and 36 per cent. of the investment from the United States. It has been estimated that inward investment in 1991–92 created 23,000 jobs and safeguarded 29,000 more. That is success on a massive scale and the Labour party would do well to remember it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston called for an industrial strategy—

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) would recognise that the Secretary of State is not giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is frit."] That may be hon. Members' view, but the Secretary of State is not giving way to the hon. Member for Thurrock.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston called for an industrial strategy. What is the cornerstone of that strategy? It is to impose the social chapter of British industry. Spain, under a socialist Government, has 18·3 per cent. unemployment; companies are leaving France to bring jobs here, away from a socialist Government; German industrialists are shifting manufacturing to central Europe; as a result of the Maastricht treaty, Britain has the opportunity to attract inward investment on a growing scale. We now have the chance to restore the manufacturing base that the Labour party did so much to erode over 40 years—and what is Labour's policy? It is to impose the social chapter.
Jacques Delors says that Britain can be a paradise for Japanese investment. Good. Today, not tomorrow, please. And thank you.
The Labour party says that it has changed; it will never change—because change requires courage, guts and vision. Change requires the will to stand up to vested interests and the Labour party is nothing except the representative of—

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the President of the Board of Trade in full flow, but there is a point of order.

Mr. Boyce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it for me?

Mr. Boyce: Yes, it is. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade could—[Interruption.] Would you be kind enough to ask the President of the Board of Trade to lower his voice a couple of octaves because we can hear his ranting through the microphones on this side of the House at the same time as his ranting from the other side of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Neither the content nor the volume are the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member only came into the Chamber a few minutes ago and he has been leaping up and down ever since. He must resume his seat.

Mr. Heseltine: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not offended you by the scale of my voice. I tend to adjust the volume depending on the penetration of the Opposition that I must make.
I think that the House will wish me to extend a note of sympathy to the hon. Member for Livingston, because the


disaster scenario to which he clings becomes less credible every day. Survey after survey shows confidence and recovery. The latest surveys by the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors show that British business knows that the recovery is coming and is under way. The surveys all have the same message—that Britain is moving ahead.
In the three months to January, retail sales were 1·5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. In February, car registrations were 16 per cent. higher than the year earlier. In the fourth quarter of 1992, manufactured exports were at record levels, excluding oil and erratics, and were up 6·5 per cent. on a year earlier, and manufacturing investment was 5·5 per cent. up on the start of the year.
The poor old hon. Member for Livingston is stuck where he was a year ago—he is the only person whose performance has not improved during the past 12 months—when he was talking about health service trusts. The Opposition—led by the hon. Member for Livingston—engaged in a scandalous campaign and exploitation of public concern about the national health service. Yet what has been the Government's record under their stewardship of the NHS? More than 1 million more patients are being treated.
The hon. Member for Livingston is now in the business of undermining British industry, but let me tell him that British industry is already making a commendable job of undermining him. I hope that the House will finish the job tonight and will support the Government.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Opposition Members and many Conservative Members—certainly those who are interested in manufacturing industry, of whom there are many on both sides of the House—will be most disappointed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
The first part of his speech and the end of it were nothing but rant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) said. One cannot substitute ranting for reason. The House is tired, and the country even more tired, of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, especially Ministers, blaming everyone but themselves for everything that happens.
I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this debate is about manufacturing industry, which is rarely discussed in the House. That is a great shame, because I passionately believe that success and prosperity can only come to a nation with a viable manufacturing industry—a nation that makes goods that one can see and touch, goods that people need and want to buy—which is the basis of any sound economy.
The President of the Board of Trade talked not about manufacturing industry but about the world recession. Yes, we accept that there is a recession. He mentioned the demonology of a Labour Government 14 years ago. The Conservatives have been in power for 14 years, and surely must accept some responsibility. Indeed, I thought that the Prime Minister did so last week. I was truly delighted when he said that industry really matters and that we must consider that it matters. The following day he spoilt it all, because he feared that he would be in the bad books of his former boss if he was seen to criticise her.
However, I must admit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, that the Prime Minister

was first Financial Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor of the Exchequer when all those terrible things were happening to the economy—against his wishes, when he was in a minority. If he allowed that to happen, he must have been a powerful Chancellor.
I am also disappointed because the President's speech was an abuse of the House. He injected a statement into the middle of a speech about manufacturing industry, which is what most hon. Members have come here to talk about. He should have presented that statement to the House tomorrow and allowed hon. Members on both sides, but especially those representing coal-mining constituencies, to question him. They had no idea that he was going to make that statement today, and I remind the President that coal is an extractive industry and has nothing to do with manufacturing, which is what we are here to talk about.
I am also disappointed because I was delighted when the President of the Board of Trade received his present job. He may have forgotten this, but I have not; he came to Halton when I was acting in my capacity as president of the chamber of commerce, which I still am. At the time, the President was in the wilderness and out of office. He gave a first-rate speech, and talked about manufacturing industry, saying interesting things about it and criticising the Government for not being active enough in manufacturing industry.
Last April, I thought that he was the man to be President of the Board of Trade, and that at last we would have someone who cared about industry. What has happened throughout those 12 months until today? No interest whatsoever has been shown in manufacturing industry.
Many hon. Members firmly believe, as I do, that manufacturing industry matters. My father, both my grandfathers, my uncles, my father-in-law and most of my classmates all worked in manufacturing industry. My constituency of Halton comprises two towns—Runcorn and Widnes—which are both industrial and manufacturing towns, and the chemical industry or chemical-associated industries predominate. In the old days, we also had machine tools, foundries and engineering, all of which have disappeared, and the chemical industry can wither on the vine for lack of attention from the Government.
I see a fellow Cheshire Member, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in his place. I was delighted when he took the initiative last week of founding an advisory committee in the House, on an all-party basis, to advise manufacturing industry, because no one seems to care about it.
Hon. Members of all parties, including the Liberals and Conservatives, are genuinely worried about what is happening to manufacturing industry. That is why I found the President's speech so disappointing, because he did not describe any initiative, show any concern or look to the future. His speech was just dispair, attack and rant, and contained nothing about what the Government will do to assist manufacturing industry.
At the last count, unemployment was 14·9 per cent. in my constituency. The President of the Board of Trade mentioned the strikes that we suffered under Labour Governments, but he did not consider how many days are lost to industry because of unemployment. That figure is many tens of times more than the days lost through strikes under any Labour Government, but he did not say a word about that.
I intend to be brief, but I want specifically to mention two means by which the Government—very often inadvertently, not wilfully—cause unemployment. The first concerns the chemical industry, which the President of the Board of Trade probably knew I would mention.
In my constituency, ICI manufactures chlorine, which consists of salt and electricity. Since privatisation took place, there has been a 66 per cent. increase in the cost of electricity. It is no coincidence that this year, for the first time since the war, ICI, that great industrial giant, announced a loss. Before electricity was privatised, ICI could buy its supply at a cheap rate because of market forces. There was no subsidy. The principle was that, if a supplier had a commodity that nobody else wanted at a particular time, it could be bought in large quantities at a lower-than-normal rate. ICI was able to secure its entire supply at a competitive rate.
I am not sure that the present suppliers of electricity, knowing how fearful would be the results of the cessation of chlorine manufacture, would not be willing to take part in a similar arrangement today, but that is forbidden by legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) put a question about this matter to the Prime Minister, but he received a very dusty answer. He then used an Adjournment debate to raise the subject, as he too has constituents who work in this industry. In another place, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chester raised the matter, as it affects his flock too. Their Lordships had a debate, in which peers from all parties spoke about this subject. The subject is intensely important, because cessation of the production of chlorine would affect 7,000 jobs directly and another 5,000 that are associated with that production.
A group of hon. Members from all parties—mostly Cheshire Members—requested a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about this matter. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, and three weeks later I received a reply saying that he was too busy to see us, but offering an appointment with the Minister for Energy. But it was not just energy that we wanted to discuss; we wanted to talk about the chemical industry, one of whose basic ingredients is chlorine.
The loss of this industry would affect more than jobs in my constituency. This is a national problem. Other manufacturers of chemicals, steel manufacturers and other high-energy users would be involved. The President's current difficulties over the coal review might have been solved with the right approach in this area. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has gone. I make this point as the Member for a constituency that would be drastically affected if the event to which I refer were to take place, as is likely unless something is done. ICI will not be able to continue to produce chlorine at a loss. No firm could.

Mr. Mike Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government could provide a solution to this problem almost immediately? The Government own 40 per cent. of the shares of PowerGen and National Power. As the major shareholder, they could intervene on behalf of the chemical industry in my right hon. Friend's constituency, save jobs in my constituency and support the industry in the north-west.

Mr. Oakes: Of course they could. They could deal with the regulations that are holding the whole process up. The industry would willingly co-operate, without any move by shareholders, in order to retain the market.
I should like to refer briefly to the pharmaceutical industry, which has been a money-spinner for this country. It is one of the most successful industries we have, yet the Government have proposed a limited list. I realise that the Secretary of State for Health has to make economies—I do not for one moment dispute that—but I am concerned about the way in which she has acted.
In 1985, the Government introduced a limited list. What happened to pharmaceuticals then? I am concerned not just with job losses but also with the inventiveness of the industry. In the categories prescribed in the limited list, not a single new drug has been brought forward. Indeed, research in respect of those categories has ceased.
On the other hand, 20 new drugs in categories not covered by the limited list have emerged. There are thousands of jobs in that field, too. It is a market in which we are leaders. We are going to lose not just the car, lorry and bus industries but also the chemical and pharmaceutical industries—largely as a result of neglect, largely because it seems that no Minister takes account of the employment implications of his decisions.
Under successive Governments, the climate of opinion about manufacturing has changed. The status of and respect for manufacturing could not be lower. I want to see that status and that respect raised. People ought to be proud to work in an industry that makes things. They ought to be proud of their role in the creation of objects that other people in the world need. Such an attitude used to exist.
Let the Government take the lead. Last week, the Prime Minister made a statement about his so-called review of the honours list. Why should not our inventors be honoured? It is even more important that we honour the people who put inventions into production. We invent things, but then we let them flow away to other nations to be developed. Why should there not be a specific honour in this field? It would cost nothing. Surely such people are more deserving of honours than sportsmen, actors, explorers and other people who find their names on the list.
Why do not schools put more emphasis on great British inventions, as happened when I was at school? The media, schools and universities should have their respect for manufacturing industries rekindled.
I repeat: manufacturing industry is the foundation of our prosperity. We have been asked whether we can expect prosperity to be led by agriculture. Of course not. Nor will it be led by the service industries or tourism. It goes without saying that we want those industries to prosper, but without manufacturing industry the future of this country is doomed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sebastian Coe. [Interruption.]

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am sorry that I was a little slow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]
Any debate that takes as its theme the decline, or even the relative decline, of our manufacturing base has to lift the lid off a sad economic history, however ghoulish or


depressing that might be. The decline of our manufacturing industries has unfortunately been a feature of most elections since the turn of the century and a key and prominent subject for debate in the nine that have taken place since 1964.
Let there be no confusion. Let us not delude ourselves. This is all familiar stuff. We have been here before. Economic historians will belabour us with myriad excuses and reasons. We know what they are: empire preference, the destruction of British industry after the second world war, the determination to run a reserve currency, sometimes Treasury fixation with the value of currency, to the neglect of manufacturing considerations. We know the arguments about trade union beligerency, and we certainly know the arguments about some of our management shortcomings in terms of the manufacturing base.
One of the issues to which we should be addressing ourselves is the fact that really only in the last few years have we started the inevitable task of rebuilding, or beginning to build for the very first time, a modern industrial state.
It is fair to say that the Governments of other European countries and north America have responded differently to the construction of the modern industrial society and that those countries have been more effective than the United Kingdom in meeting educational needs. Some will even claim that there is something specific or peculiar about our response to manufacturing. Perhaps we display an anti-industrial ethos. To appreciate that, one need only consider where the forefathers of our industrial heritage chose to send their children to school—Harrow, Eton and the other great public schools that, for so many years, offered a classics, science-free education. I do not absolve the echelons of higher education from these shortcomings.
The issue of education is still alive and features prominently in current discussions. Far too often, we encourage youngsters to seek employment in the service sector, the City or at the Bar. They are told that it is more acceptable if one pursues such professions instead of opting for a manufacturing career on the factory floor.
I was brought up in Sheffield—one of this country's historically most productive cities. It was a jewel in our manufacturing crown, yet throughout the 1970s, when I was getting careers advice from schoolteachers and people who should have known better, I was encouraged, in common with the rest of my classmates, to take up employment in one of the non-productive sectors. It was more acceptable to work for the council than in any capacity on the factory floor. That attitude has been hugely damaging to our manufacturing industry and is responsible for the ethos that has surrounded most of the thinking about manufacturing for far too long.
As we trudge through the debates on education, amid the battle cries, squabbles and platitudes about the indispensability of a good education and meaningful training, let us not further delude ourselves. We have been here before, too. Even after the establishment of state education in 1870 there was little bias towards technical education. The reforms of 1902 dealt mainly with religious issues and little consideration was paid to our scientific base and training. The teaching provided by the grammar schools was based upon the classics-based education offered by the public schools rather than that offered by the technical high schools of Germany and France.
I beg the patience of the House while I read a quote from a royal commission report of 1868 on endowed schools:
Our evidence appears to show that our industrial classes have not even that basis of sound general education on which alone technical education can rest—unless we remedy that want, we shall gradually but surely find that undeniable superiority in wealth, and perhaps in energy, will not save us from decline.
That quote could have come from any Select Committee report of the past 15 years.
I do not absolve the upper echelons of higher education from guilt. In 1945, the Percy Committee recommended that the war-time output of engineers—around 3,000—should be maintained for at least 10 years. The universities could produce only 1,200, with the rest made up from technical colleges. Very few of those engineers were university graduates; the majority came from technical schools. Sir Lawrence Bragg, Cavendish professor at Cambridge, displayed breathtaking arrogance when he said that universities were designed to train the mind while technical schools were designed specifically to train people for jobs. Twenty-five years later, a study of 90 machine tool companies in the west midlands, employing 30,000 people, revealed that only 25 of them were engineering graduates.
The fact that only half of British youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 participate in full-time education compared with 70 per cent. in Germany, Japan, France or the United States of America also has a bearing on the future of manufacturing. Equally, in 1990 some 40 per cent. of youngsters left school without any graded qualifications or with GCSE passes at no higher than grade D. Those factors place a huge burden on anyone who seeks to plan our manufacturing base for the next few years.
It is welcome that the core skills of those aged between 16 and 19 have been identified and are now being stressed. They are a strong factor in improving technical education, but we must still remove more of the barriers that exist between standard academic education and so-called "vocational training".
We have paid a high price not so much for the reckless radicalism of our educational establishments, but because of the institutional sclerosis that has led to comprehensive schools being modelled on grammar schools and polytechnics on universities when in the latter case the reverse should have been the case. What has happened as a result of that practice? By the end of the 1970s, we hardly had a technical school left. We have been left with an academic model that is irrelevant to, or at best frustrating for, a large proportion of our school population.
Ever since 1840, our inability to deliver the right kind of technical education has been our industrial dead weight—our industrial albatross. From the 1868 royal commission to which I have referred, the 1902 reforms, the Education Act 1944—the Butler Act, the Eccles White Paper on technical education of 1955 through to the core curriculum and the training and enterprise councils of today, the necessary words have been mouthed, but little has been done.
Are we sure that the messages that have emanated from this place in the past 40 years have been as supportive as they could have been to our manufacturing base? A quick glance down the list of previous Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry does not necessarily make the best reading, nor did they always offer the best message to our


manufacturing industry. We went from the damaging interventionist meddling years of the 1960s and 1970s through to the equally damaging detachment displayed in the early 1980s
What of our civil service? What top-class advice has been offered by it? In the past, most civil servants were Euro-reluctants, imbued with the philosophy of nationalised industries. They had no hands-on experience of running an industry. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s they could not see what was obvious to everyone else about our future development within Europe.
There is nothing inevitable about relative or real-terms decline. We tend to use the word culture when we cannot explain something and I risk using it in this context. We have a culture—an industrial heritage. We are a manufacturing nation and every instinct in me tells me that that is so. By inclination we are not a series of motorways, mapping out non-productive distribution centres only.
If we are to recover from our manufacturing problems, we need a basic framework for economic recovery and I welcome the fact that the Government have set that in place. We need low inflation, low interest rates, good industrial relations and a low tax regime. Combined with that, however, we must build on the cultural ethos that we in Great Britain make things.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) has addressed some of the gut issues that the President of the Board of Trade would have done well to address. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman made his traditional, almost predictable, rant that was totally lacking substance.
It is interesting that in his peroration, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that everything in the garden was lovely, that the country was enjoying resounding success. He said that any suggestions to the contrary were either untrue, a socialist plot or put about by someone out of touch with reality. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, however, has thoughtfully pointed out that a long-term problem has persisted under different Governments, and that a cultural change is needed if we are to get to grips with it.
May I first address the issue that the Prime Minister sought to address before he rather quickly backed out of it last week? He began to acknowledge the point that the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) also made—that the British economy will not be competitive unless it has a larger manufacturing base. It is as simple as that. The economic blizzard of 1979 to 1981, whatever else it did, even by the pretensions of the Government of the day, made our industry apparently leaner and fitter. Let us acknowledge that it may have done that, but unfortunately it also made it much smaller, and we have not, over the past 12 or 14 years, been able to break out of that problem. We have to address that very positively and constructively.
We would have liked to think that the President of the Board of Trade had some grasp of the urgency of the problem and of the need to look outside the narrow confines of party political rhetoric, and would start to get to grips with a problem that will require the minds and the application of politicians of all persuasions, including

people outside this House—in industry, trade unions, the City and every other institution engaged in productive economic activity in this country.
It is time that the Government got out of the trenches and started to show a little constructive leadership in this matter. In that context, the President of the Board of Trade's speech was deeply depressing and extremely disappointing.
The Engineering Employers Federation, before Christmas, launched its idea of an industrial strategy. Two facts came out of that which hit me between the eyes, and which sum up, it seems to me, the situation we face and the need to take some positive action. It pointed out that the British economy had an apparently permanent propensity to consume 105 per cent. of its output. I suggest to all hon. Members that that is not a sustainable situation. It is likely to lead to permanent pressure on our exchange rates and to consequential effects on our internal economy.
Another more interesting point that it made was that an historical analysis of the past 60 years shows that the rate of return on investment in manufacturing industry was about 7·5 per cent., but, in the 1980s alone, the rate of return was about 18 per cent. We have now reaped the consequences of that candy-floss era. We all have to recognise that that is not a sustainable rate of return, that the financial institutions cannot look for it and must not expect it, and that industry has some right to expect a more realistic framework within which to raise money at a rate of return that makes sense, is sustainable, and takes account of the need for long-term strategy and thinking, and for investment to bear fruit.
Let me entertain the House with two or three fundamental statistics which put the situation over the past two or three years in context. The gross domestic fixed capital formation for manufacturing for 1992 was £10,285,000,000. That was 6·4 per cent. less than the figure for 1979. Even allowing for the fact that the President of the Board of Trade wanted to make comparisons with a different base rate, and even if one takes the best year of the past 14, which is 1985, we have just got back to slightly above that level. That is nothing to be proud of.
It is also true that, at the beginning of the last decade, we had a surplus in manufactured trade goods of £1 billion. In 1992, we had a £10 billion deficit. That was in the middle of a recession.
This debate is about unemployment, and I shall come back to that in a minute. It is worth recording that, in 1979, manufacturing industry employed 7·1 million people. Last year, it was down to 4·5 million, a reduction of 2·6 million people, with an unemployed level of 3 million. That is a reduction overall of 37 per cent. If we make comparisons between our manufacturing output and that of our major competitors—

Mr. Richards: The hon. Member has given some statistics of numbers of people employed in the manufacturing sector and how their number has fallen in this country. Can he identify any other modern industrial western country where the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector has not fallen during the 1980s?

Mr. Bruce: Not a large manufacturing country. As I said, I was coming back to that, but I drew the allusion nevertheless.
We have lost jobs, and they have to be replaced. I wholly accept that they cannot all be replaced by


manufacturing, but manufacturing has to create the growth and the wealth and the recovery to pay for the jobs to be created elsewhere. That is the fundamental point.
Comparative figures show that manufacturing output has increased in the United Kingdom between 1980 and 1990 by 2·1 per cent., as opposed to the OECD average of 2·9 per cent., so we have not been performing well by comparison with our competitors.
The President of the Board of Trade made considerable play, reinforced by some interventions from his Back Benchers, with the improvement in productivity. I wholly accept that. There has been an improvement in productivity, but there had to be, because of course we are operating from a much smaller base. For us to reap the full benefits of those improvements in productivity, we need to expand the manufacturing base, so that we can create more wealth to pay our way in the world.
I spent a couple of hours this morning in the City, visiting Lloyds. It was brought home to me there that many of our City institutions that still maintain substantial expertise and ability to turn around very substantial sums of money, to add value and make profit, nevertheless grew up at a time when we were an imperial power and had a captive market. We can only hold those markets if we maintain a competitive edge and the ability to provide added value and productivity that beats our competitors.
Our ability to sustain that and to provide full employment in that sector, the Secretary of State for Employment would have to acknowledge, is somewhat under question. The banks are shedding thousands of jobs. Employment fall-out in Lloyds itself is coming down the track. We see, right across the service sector, that it can neither sustain continued expansion in employment nor hold the jobs that have been created in recent years. So the conventional wisdom, which I think the Prime Minister was beginning to address, has to be challenged. The service sector will not be able to provide enough of the employment of the future or to provide the necessary wealth to create jobs.
It is worth pointing out in this context, taking up the point that I was returning to when the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) intervened, that it is clear that an expansion in manufacturing will not, of itself, create a huge increase in direct employment. I think it will, however, first provide quality employment, because it requires the application of considerable skills for which we have to improve our training, and it will provide the spin-off for the service sector which manufacturing industry itself employs. I argue that the indirect effect will be quite significant.
In the period when we came out of the last recession of the mid-1980s, during the years 1985 to 1987, companies employing fewer than 20 people accounted for 500,000 new jobs, while companies employing more than 20 people produced only 20,000 new jobs. When we are talking about manufacturing industry, we should be thinking not just about huge industrial complexes but about small manufacturing companies creating added value, applying skills, transferring technology and creating the means of expansion in both employment and wealth.
It is worth making comparisons with the two countries against which it is most important for us to mark our performance—Germany and Japan. We often make comparisons with America, which I think are completely wrong, because America is a big economy operating in a completely different framework. While it is culturally

similar, the nature of the American economy is very dissimilar from ours. Germany and Japan are trading nations which have to generate external wealth to sustain their population with the kind of standard of living to which they aspire.
Contrary to popular belief, Japan is not a big business economy: it is a small business economy. One of its great strengths is the link between huge trading corporations and a massive network of small suppliers. The difference is that big business in Japan is the friend of small business, whereas too often in Britain it sees itself as in competition with small business, or is careless about the latter's interests, or does not pay its bills on time. It fails to co-operate in helping small businesses to advance. We should therefore look at ways of creating more positive relations between the two.
Similarly, in Germany, there is a relationship between the financial sector, manufacturers and investors which takes account of long-term needs. Hostile takeovers, a feature of British economic life, are almost unknown in Germany. Conservative Members are fond of saying that it is a good discipline for management to know that they can be taken over; but it also encourages short-termisrn. Long-term investment encourages hostile takeovers to raid the cash funds for short-term benefit.
We must find a way of getting around that, to enable companies to make long-term investments without putting themselves at risk. The City, the Government and industry should all explore this. For instance, the City should provide funds for specific needs at attractive rates for long-term investment. That should not be beyond the wit of the City. Nor should it be beyond the wit of the Treasury and the Chancellor if necessary to underpin such loans with tax incentives, which will accrue to long-term investments and which can accrue only if they remain long-term. They will be penalised if anyone tries to capitalise on them in the short term.
The antics displayed by the President of the Board of Trade are confusing. He is fond, when it suits him, of talking about intervention and telling us why he cannot, must not or should not intervene when it does not suit him to. There is no logic or consistency or strategy—no shred of forethought at all. The general impression is that the right hon. Gentleman is happy to get through another day without another catastrophe landing on his plate. We are entitled to something better.
After all, the right hon. Gentleman resigned from the Government because he wanted to intervene over Westland. Before he came to prominence, there were several conspicuous occasions when Tory Governments intervened to the benefit of our long-term manufacturing and industrial base. Had it not been for such interventions, there would be no Rolls-Royce and no Ferranti today. I do not see why we cannot have an honest assessment of the terms and conditions on which Tory Ministers might intervene.
The President of the Board of Trade, perhaps foreshadowing his White Paper on the pits inquiry, seemed to be preparing the ground for his escape from the recommendations of the Select Committee report. He started by saying that the market was the prime determinant. The Select Committee did not specifically deal with that, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he thinks the nuclear power industry managed to secure 25 per cent. of the electricity generation


market on free market principles. He well knows that the market has been distorted; there is no point in pretending otherwise.
Where do we go from here? The part of the President's speech dealing with the French interconnector was interesting, and we shall study it and return to it. I had understood that the interconnector was designed from the beginning to provide the opportunity for a flow of electricity to and from the continent, not just between the United Kingdom and France but to the European Community. All most of us want is the ability to make it a two-way process. If it were, it would release resources that could be provided for by coal. Whatever contractual terms the President of the Board of Trade is locked into, this country is buying subsidised French coal-fired electricity at the expense of our own. The British people find that hard to understand.
I attended the launch of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, of which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is chairman. I am happy to be associated with it. What we need now is a recognition cutting across party politics that we must have positive, strong and imaginative ideas to build a stronger manufacturing base. We need to leave behind sterile arguments about whether manufacturing creates more jobs than do the service industries, tourism or invisibles. We need all those things if this country is to survive. This debate is timely, in that at the moment our manufacturing sector is too small for Britain's fundamental economic needs. If we can all agree on that, we can start to do something about it.
If the Secretary of State for Employment is to answer this debate, I urge her to respond to it more constructively than the President of the Board of Trade did. We have the skills; we can make things; we can add value. If we do not do so, we will have no chance of conquering unemployment or of giving our people the standard of living which they have a right to expect and which we are still a long way from achieving.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is nearly 22 years since I first spoke in the House. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that, during that time, I have solidly, continuously and forcefully expressed my concern for manufacturing industry—a concern to identify and deal with its problems and to enable it to realise its potential both as a major employer and as the only sustainable source of non-inflationary economic growth.
Today I speak with a still greater mandate, because, as several hon. Members have already said, last week saw the launch of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, on which I have the honour to serve as chairman. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the trade and industry spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, for speaking from the platform on that occasion on behalf of his party.
I am also delighted to see in their places the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) and for Stockport (Ms. Coffey), who serve on the advisory panel of the alliance. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) is also a member of the advisory panel. I agree with every word he uttered in support of the chemical industry and

the pharmaceutical industry. If only Governments had used their influence, not necessarily to interfere with, but to involve themselves in, industry and to guide and help it, perhaps the severe erosion of our manufacturing base over the past 40 to 50 years would not have occurred.
The launch of the alliance, with messages of support from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party and the Leader of the Opposition, is as unprecedented in its cross-party support as it is timely in its arrival. The alliance, which draws together Members from all political parties, leading figures from the City and key players from the manufacturing and construction industries—employers and employees—has already begun to make its presence felt.
I do not want to claim undue credit for the actions and statements of others, but I welcome today's debate, even if I have some reservations about the tone of the motion. I welcome even more the commitment to manufacturing that the Prime Minister showed in his highly publicised interview last week. Coincidentally, he gave that interview the day after the alliance was launched and he had received all the papers about the launch.
Throughout the time I have served in the House, successive Governments of all political hues have failed to appreciate the true importance of our manufacturing industry. Too few hon. Members have real experience of those industries, and too great a concentration of effort and attention has been placed on the service sector to the detriment of our manufacturing base.
I have some regret about the way in which the debate has gone so far. The two Front-Bench speeches appeared to be entirely party political point scoring, with few positive proposals about how our manufacturing base might be expanded and strengthened. However, after those opening speeches, we had a positive and useful contribution from the right hon. Member for Halton.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). I was surprised—I do not say that in a patronising way—at his thoughtful and considered speech. It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State for Employment takes back to all the Ministers concerned—not just at the Departments of Employment and of Trade and Industry but at the Treasury, the Department for Education and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Department—the pertinent views of my hon. Friend.
I hope that party political polemics will be put aside for the remainder of the debate and that Conservative and Opposition Members will concentrate on seeking to find common ground which can be exploited to establish and implement new policies that will give constructive benefits to our most important industries. Our economic and employment opportunities could be sustained, but the belief that they could be sustained without a manufacturing base has been exposed, and widely accepted, as the absurdity it always was.
Unemployment is likely to remain at around the 3 million mark for some time, the balance of payments deficit continues to grow and we are an uncompetitive nation in an increasingly tough and competitive world. As our manufacturing base has contracted, our balance of trade deficit has increased proportionately. The issue must be grasped by Government.
I do not, however, want to fall into the trap of pointing the finger at the present Government for all the evils of our economy now. That would be as unfair as it would be


unhelpful. As has been pointed out, we are in a world recession. Successive Governments of both parties have failed to deal effectively with the forces that led to the steady erosion of our manufacturing base.
Let us hope that this debate begins to see the turning of the tide and that what is said by hon. Members in all parts of the House will be studied carefully by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Employment, who is in her place, and by Foreign Office Ministers. Between them, they have a combined responsibility for identifying the problems that our industries are facing and for bringing forward constructive and positive solutions to help manufacturers to make better goods more efficiently and to sell them abroad to earn the revenue that Britain needs.
With the Budget looming and the constraint that I should not stray too widely from the subject of the motion, the House will find it helpful if I take the opportunity to put on the record the measures that the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance believes should be considered for incorporation in the Budget statement on which the Chancellor is undoubtedly working.
The measures that I put to the House are as simple as they are essential. First, we wish to see the introduction of 100 per cent. capital allowances to ensure that the investment decisions of industry are not distorted by the tax regime. Secondly, we wish to see a commitment to reducing still further, and to holding down, interest rates, which have placed intolerable burdens on industry and home owners alike. Thirdly, we wish to see the abolition of stamp duty on the sale of houses. That archaic tax is a dampener on the housing market and should be excised immediately from the list of what I describe as acceptable tax measures.
Fourthly, we wish to see the creation of a task force to identify and tackle areas that offer considerable potential for import substitution. I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, who is extremely sympathetic to that sort of exercise being undertaken. Fifthly, we want a more favourable tax treatment of the fees that individuals pay to improve their qualifications and skills through part-time education. Sixthly, we want a firm and explicit political commitment to promote British exports through all the means at the disposal of the Government.
It is no good the Government saying that they are doing a lot in that area when—my right hon. Friend the former Minister for Trade, who is now the Minister for Industry, and who I am glad to see on the Front Bench, knows this well—the rates given in this country by the Export Credits Guarantee Department are nowhere near as competitive as those available in France or Germany. Our exporters are operating at a disadvantage. Those are all measures within the short-term gift of the Government. They are needed and would receive a welcome from industry, the City and from most, if not all, hon. Members.
In a message at the launch of the alliance, the Prime Minister said:
I am sure that the Alliance will argue the case for manufacturing industry with vigour in the years ahead. I look forward to its dialogue with Government in this important cause.
My comments today represent the first contribution of the alliance to the dialogue for which the Prime Minister called.

Mr. Dennis Turner: I intervene on behalf of the west midlands. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents and I would rest easier if tomorrow he were given the opportunity to implement the proposals he has put to the House by being appointed President of the Board of Trade? We in the west midlands have had a third of our manufacturing base eroded. In my constituency, over 20 per cent. of the working population—good, able-bodied men and women—are available to make a contribution to society. My area was built up on manufacturing. The policies that the hon. Gentleman outlined should be implemented. I hope that the Prime Minister will see the wisdom of giving him the opportunity to implement them—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member knows my views on interventions. His is becoming a speech.

Mr. Winterton: It may have been long, but from my point of view it was most welcome, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have supported from the Conservative Benches some of the points that he has made at Question Time and on other occasions. When his suggestions deserve merit, as they often do, I shall continue to support them.
As the hon. Member for Gordon said, it is important for hon. Members in all parts of the House to try to find common ground on which to take forward the cause of manufacturing industry. Having worked for many years in the Birmingham area, in the west midlands, the black country, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Stourbridge—1 could go on naming the places—in the construction industry, I appreciate how important manufacturing industry is to that part of the world. There are the skills—the willing and trained people in that area—to form an important part of the renaissance of manufacturing industry in this country.
I hope that our proposals will be given careful and sympathetic consideration, because they are constructive and positive, and that they will be taken to all the Ministries concerned.
I have one other suggestion for consideration. It is that Ministers should look again at the provisions for dealing with the affairs of businesses that run into financial difficulties. Our current provisions seem to propel far too many businesses with short-term problems towards and beyond the brink of liquidation, when a more constructive approach might have averted such a result. We need the administrative equivalent, not of the undertaker, which too often the liquidator is, but of a paramedic task force, which, when a business hits troubled waters, can provide immediate advice and help in finding a way to keep that business trading and so avoid unnecessary liquidations, loss of jobs and knock-on effects on creditors.
Nobody, except perhaps the liquidator, benefits from the current situation. Many hon. Members have expressed their understandable concern that our system appears to be biased against survival, and would welcome a commitment by the Government to consider introducing arrangements perhaps not dissimilar to those available in the United States, where companies can file for chapter 11 status and be subject to a task force type investigation to keep them on their feet. Too many companies have the rug pulled for the wrong reason, when a little advice and slightly longer-term support would keep them going and maintain the jobs.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the British system of receivership allows many businesses to survive and prosper despite having short-term financial problems?

Mr. Winterton: There is some truth in what my hon. Friend has said, but I must tell the House from my contacts with many sectors of industry that people do not believe that the present system helps the company to survive, particularly if it is a private company, because the proprietors are immediately excluded from any management situation and on-going contact with the company.
I wish to put it on the record that last week I was joined at the launch of the alliance by the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Francis McWilliams, Mr. John Edmonds, the general secretary of the GMB, one of the largest unions in the country, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who speaks for the Opposition on trade and industry matters, the hon. Member for Gordon, who speaks for the Liberal Democratic party, and many leading figures from British industry.
We came together with common cause because we believe that the complacency of previous years towards our industries has done real and lasting harm; because we are convinced that urgent remedial action is necessary; and because we believe in making things happen rather than sitting idly by and fiddling while Rome burns.
Taking up one matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, I should mention that another of the people on the platform at the launch of the alliance was Mr. Bob Worcester, the chairman of MORI polls. He had undertaken a survey for the alliance of 1,000 university students and I wonder whether hon. Members know the favoured career for which they opted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lawyer? Engineer?"] No, not a lawyer and not an engineer. We should not be having these sedentary interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that was not really a rhetorical question. I will give the answer to the House: journalism and broadcasting was the favoured career for people in higher education. I think that that is shocking.
Let us hope that in this debate the spokesmen for all political parties and all the Back-Bench Members will seek to lay the foundation for a new cultural and political consensus which places the needs, the problems and the potential of these critical manufacturing and construction industries firmly on the parliamentary agenda of our country, and that we begin to act with one heart and one mind in our determination to prevent the further erosion of our manufacturing base.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that between now and 9 pm there will be a limit of 10 minutes on speeches, and that it will be strictly observed.

Mr. William McKelvey: Even in a 10-minute spell, it is worth taking a few seconds to congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the launch of his alliance. I will attempt to join that alliance, as I have several other alliances in which he has played a part.
I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that the speech by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne

(Mr. Coe) was very able. It was one with which I heartily agreed. My only embarrassment was that I had not made a similar speech some years ago, because I owed it to the engineering industry. He must come from an engineering background; I suspect that perhaps his father was an engineer and spoon-fed him.
I take note of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield said about trying to get an alliance, particularly from the Back Benches. We should not, in the space of 10 minutes, start referring to the frailties of the present Government.
I want to speak mainly about my constituency, which is, or at least used to be, a manufacturing constituency. We need look no further than Kilmarnock and Loudoun, which is in Ayrshire, to see the disastrous effects of the Government's economic policies.
Kilmarnock has had the dubious problem of a heavy dependency on manufacturing industry and more than one third of the district's employed people still work in that industry. I say "dubious" because I believe that we are all agreed that a really healthy economy that produces wealth is one with a solid manufacturing base. It is ironic that we are seeing the vestiges of Kilmarnock's once-healthy manufacturing base being eroded yet again. There is no sign of the economy improving in Scotland and in Kilmarnock in particular. In fact, for whatever reason, we are now seeing the ravages of a new form of economic decline and are losing jobs.
I say that we have a manufacturing base which is now a problem, because manufacturing is so threatened as to make Kilmarnock a highly insecure place with regard to employment. It is threatened in a number of ways.
Many of our industries are threatened, first, because of the direct, unfair competition from cheap imports. That is something which the Government must look at very closely. One of the traditional manufacturing industries in Kilmarnock is shoes. We have the Kilmarnock Shoe Company, which used to be Saxones; it used to employ over 800 people, but that has now reduced to something like 226 and will drop to about 187 because the company is having to shed workers. The main cause is the cheap imports coming into the country from China, where poverty wages are paid to adults and children are exploited in the most appalling conditions. That appears to be one of the direct causes of the loss of jobs in the shoe industry and it is something which Government Departments should be examining and stopping.
There is also the carpet-making industry, in which there are famous names in Kilmarnock. There is BMK, which is now only a shadow of its former self, but nevertheless, having modernised, is able to compete with the carpet manufacturing industry in Europe. But even in this field there are imports, from Belgium in particular. Their wages are comparable with ours and their productivity records are no better than ours, yet somehow the carpets can be brought into this country and sold more cheaply. I suspect that somewhere there are hidden Government subsidies and we either have to do the same for our carpet manufacturers or see that Belgium stops applying subsidies.
One of our best employers in Kilmarnock, of which I have often spoken in the House, is Johnny Walker, with the biggest and most modern bottling shed in the world. The company employs up to 800 people. I ask Conservative Back Benchers to have a word in the Chancellor's ear, because tax of £5·60 on a bottle of whisky is a disgrace. It is not a case of not increasing the


tax in the Budget: the tax should be decreased substantially, so that Scotch whisky can compete favourably in European markets with other spirits.
We have a new trade with people taking wagons to Europe to fill with cheap booze. The axles on the cars cannot take the weight of the spirits that are being brought from the continent because of the low tax on alcohol, and particularly on whisky. We should not accept conditions in which a bottle of whisky in France, or in Italy is £2·50 cheaper than where it is made. I want to see whisky being sold at the same price in Kilmarnock as it is in France, so that all of us may benefit from the spirit of life.
Because of problems in the service sector, I am increasingly being contacted by small companies threatened by cash flow problems when creditors cannot pay on time or are themselves faced with bankruptcy. The example I quote is the collapse of the biggest building company in Scotland, Lilley plc. It is an extraordinary affair. The four departments of Lilley collapsed on a Friday and reopened under a different name on Monday, with all its debts being left with the smaller companies.
One company in my constituency which was owed £38,000 by Lilley went under because the banks foreclosed on it. Because Lilley went into receivership, 60 jobs in my constituency were lost. Lilley was able to reopen on the Monday but the 60 jobs were lost because the cash which should have come from Lilley was not there. That should not be possible in a modern society.
The Government Departments which I contacted, Customs and Excise and PAYE, were most helpful in extending the time for payment. After I had negotiated an additional year for the firm to pay its VAT, the bank suggested that it should push for even more time. I told the firm to go back and ask the bank to honour its agreement and, instead of cutting the overdraft, to give the firm more financial assistance so that the VAT could be paid.
Banks in Scotland are not playing the game with small businesses. They are foreclosing on them far too soon or are restricting their cash flow, with the result that many small companies are being squeezed out of business. Perhaps Ministers could have a word with bankers who are doing that, particularly in Scotland.
Farming has faced many difficulties over the years. The hill livestock compensatory allowance was designed to compensate farmers in areas like my constituency. Recent cuts in the allowance have severely weakened the competitive position of farmers in the market for lamb. In conjunction with the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, backed by the Government, which proposes the break-up of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board, both of which operated efficiently, the picture which emerges is of a Government with few ideas and even less ability. I hope that my comments will be noted by the Minister and acted upon.

Mr. John Sykes: I am glad to have been called to take part in the debate because my family firm, established in 1845, supplied coal and then oil to the great woollen mills in the west riding. My grandfather was also called John Sykes. He joined the firm in 1914, taking it on to greater things. None of his friends could understand

why he always travelled second class on the train from Slaithwaite to Huddersfield, until he told them that it was because there was not a third class.
We have survived, despite Labour Governments. These days we manufacture in Filey, near my constituency in Scarborough. I recommend the area to any prospective employer, at home or abroad, who may be listening. Let us make no mistake, many will be looking in on the debate. What will they make of the Labour party? Will they come to the conclusion that of all countries, ours is the one to be avoided at all costs? That is the message, for political reasons alone, which the little Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches are peddling.
That is hardly surprising, coming as it does from a party many of whose members would sooner take from the church poor box than stand up for their country. This is the Labour party which crippled manufacturing industry with inflation rates which would have made even a south American banker reach for his pacemaker. .This is the Labour party which hated manufacturers with such venom that it wanted to make the pips squeak.
While on the subject of pipsqueaks, I am old enough to remember the last Labour Government. Opposition Members have the gall to complain about manufacturing today. I recall several leading and distinguished members of the Labour party, including even members of the Labour Cabinet, parading on picket lines during the 1970s, in the full glare of the international press, telling the world what they thought of their country and of manufacturing industry.
I recall that this was the Labour party which brought us the winter of discontent. As long as I draw breath, I shall never forget that winter, having to go before a strike committee in Barnsley in 1979 to beg it on bended knee to allow oil deliveries through to Redfearns National Glass because, without fuel, its kilns would have cooled and cracked and thousands in Barnsley would have been thrown out of work.
Yet the motion talks of a coherent strategy and measures to reduce unemployment. As long as I draw breath, I shall never forget the tanker driver who came to me in tears because his wife and family had received threats because he had driven through a secondary picket line. [Interruption.] I am in no mood to take lessons from the little Castros on the Opposition Benches, most of whom would not know a business if it jumped up and slapped them in the face. Most of them are teachers or lecturers and most of whom are sponsored by unions.
Let us take, for example, the Opposition spokesman on manufacturing, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). That city expanded out of recognition during the 1980s as a result of Conservative policies. The hon. Gentleman was busy lecturing on the subject of industrial relations at Leeds university between 1971 and 1983. Is he aware of the tremendous trouble to which my company had to go, because of secondary picketing, to supply Leeds university with heating oil? If he is not, perhaps it is the first recorded case in history of the left hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.
This is the Labour party which is dying to bring in the 48-hour week. Labour Members know, or should know, that it would cost thousands of jobs. They should know that manufacturers need to work when the work is there, not when some Greek Commissioner says that it is there. This is the Labour party that pines for the social chapter, when its members know that even Jacques Delors says that


it will make Great Britain a paradise for investment. Even the Fred Flintstones on the Opposition Benches acknowledge that investment equals jobs.
This is the Labour party that yearns to squeeze jobs out of industry with a minimum wage, a policy which has destroyed whole industries in France. The Labour party strains at the leash to cast away all our trade union reforms and longs for the return of flying pickets. This is the Labour party of closed shops and closed minds. Above all, this is a Labour party not even up to the task of the debate, a party for whom Opposition Supply day debates are the only certainty in its twilight days.

Mr. Eric Insley: If I had been a member of the strike committee before which the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) appeared to ask for a dispensation to run his wagons through to Barnsley, he probably would not have got it after a speech like that.
I shall concentrate on unemployment in my constituency. The Government's figure for unemployment, based on those who are claiming benefit, exceeds 3 million. If we add trainees and people who do not claim benefit, the true figure is about 4·5 million. That is one in 10 of the work force. That unemployment costs £9,000 per person, or about £27 billion a year—money that should be used by the Government to create jobs and produce the tax revenue that the country needs.
About 800,000 unemployed people are under the age of 25, and most of those young people have never had a job. They have been shunted from one training scheme to another with no prospect of permanent employment. The Government have told us again that low inflation, low interest rates and other factors are now in place for recovery. Where is the recovery that the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister have promised for so many years? I agree that inflation and interest rates are low, but unemployment is still extremely high.
Nobody has any confidence in the Government's ability to get people back to work. Unfortunately, my constituency fares worse than the national average. Unemployment there has risen by 1,000 since the President of the Board of Trade opened his mouth in October about colliery closures. In my constituency, 12,500 people are registered as unemployed. That is 12·6 per cent., but the 1991 census gives a more accurate figure and shows that 15,000 or 15 per cent. of people are out of work.
I visited my jobcentres on Friday and discovered that one office, which deals with 8,000 claimants out of the total of 12,500, has only 90 vacancies at any one time. For the whole of Barnsley, there are 185 vacancies at any one time. That is one job for every 67 people who are out of work, compared with the national ratio of one job for every 29 people. In that office, I looked at the most recent vacancy on computer to discover the wages on offer. The clothing industry is a major employer in my constituency, after the demise of coal, and offers part-time female employment. According to the computer, an experienced garment presser was being offered £105 for a 37-hour week. That amount was not being offered to a kid on the dole, a school leaver or a part-time worker: it was for an experienced garment presser. A wage of £105 a week is a disgrace.
In January, 111 industrial vacancies were advertised in the press, while for the standard occupational sector 115 vacancies were advertised. Last month people, who had been unemployed for a long time lobbied Parliament. One of my constituents on that lobby has written more than 1,000 letters in an attempt to get a job. He has been writing since April last year, but has had no success because no jobs are available.
What are the immediate prospects? I am told by my economic development association that things could be looking up. A company called Michigan Clothing has 30 vacancies, Haywood and Padgett has 12 and ITC (UK) Ltd. has five. Hill Meyer Alan Design has won a contract for £150,000-worth of work and may offer 50 to 60 jobs in the near future. However, pit closures will mean that in October we shall lose 6,000 jobs at the two collieries in my area. That should be set against the 50 to 60 jobs that will be offered by the companies that I have mentioned. I am grateful for those jobs and wish that there were more on the way.
I congratulate my local chamber of commerce, whose members I met here last week, on organising Interprise 1993. Employers from all over Europe have been invited to that conference in Barnsley and the chamber has said that it will introduce producers in my constituency to similar companies in Europe to try to make something of the single market.
I listened with interest to the statement within the speech of the President of the Board of Trade about British Coal. In it, he again decried every suggestion by the Select Committee on Energy and other informed bodies on a way out of the coal crisis. Because of revenue support grant capping, my local authority has to cut £11 million from its budget. So far, that has meant 350 redundancies, closures of residential homes and the prospect of further redundancies. The economic development unit has to make a 38 per cent. cut, although that unit is doing much to attract the jobs to which I have referred. That massive cut is also due to problems with the revenue support grant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) spoke about carpet manufacturing in his area. A carpet company in my constituency announced 65 redundancies in January out of a work force of about 300, because there is no demand in the economy for the company's products. One of the companies for which I used to work, Quilter Hall and Company, an engineering company which has been established for over 100 years and which manufactures mining equipment and rolling stock, tried to win a contract in India as part of a consortium with NEI and an Indian company. The contract was to build parts of power stations in India, a country that the Prime Minister recently visited. Quilter Hall tells me that it cannot win the contract because of unfair competition.
A company called ABB, which is competing with the consortium, was allowed to re-tender after the Quilter Hall consortium beat ABB on not only price but quality and specifications. Quilter Hall offered better specifications and price, but the Indians clearly want ABB to win the contract. Even the second re-tender price is higher than that offered by the Quilter Hall/NEI consortium.
Quilter Hall has lost £40,000 tendering for that contract. It is struggling for survival, but last year it completely retooled its fitting shop, boiler shop and fabrication shop, and ceased production of mining equipment, for which there is no demand, to build


locomotives for the channel tunnel. It beat every manufacturer in the country on specifications and is now building those locomotives for the channel tunnel project —if that project ever comes to fruition. What is the President of the Board of Trade doing about that tender?
Where is the intervention that we hear so much about? Who is helping the Quilter Hall/NEI consortium to win the Indian contract? That consortium can win it fairly and does not want any underhand assistance, but when its tender is the best it should be chosen.
About 18 months ago, the Barnsley Canister company, a premier manufacturer of tinplate canisters, went bust when a company called CMB Packaging bought its order book and closed the factory. It was asset-stripped simply for the order book. When are we to have the intervention that will create jobs in areas such as mine?

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I support the Government's amendment and take cognisance of the greatly improved confidence within industry, as highlighted by the Institute of Directors and the CBI—representing as I do a constituency with a higher proportion of manufacturing jobs than in the country as a whole and having myself worked in manufacturing industry.
I am quietly confident that there are opportunities for manufacturing industry now which have not been available for the past 10 years. I say that, first, because there is evidence that British manufacturing industry is competitive. Exports are up to record levels compared with last year, running even now at £9 billion per month. There has been an improvement in retail sales, and even an improvement during the past eight weeks in house sales, which show an increase of some 20 per cent. over last year. I am cautiously optimistic that, provided that we have the right kind of Budget, that will improve.
I believe that British manufacturing industry stands on the threshold of significant improvements in competitiveness while other countries are losing competitiveness, first, because inward investment is dramatic and at its highest ever levels. The Japanese do not put 41 per cent. of their investment in Europe just because they like the look of us. They do it because they believe that Britain can be more competitive than elsewhere in the EC.
The OECD, in its latest report, talked about the resilence of investment, and of spending on research and development in Britain during the recession. Productivity in manufacturing has continued, almost uniquely in the recession, to increase. In October and November, it increased on average by about 6·3 per cent., which is the best since the best years in the 1980s.
Possibly most important of all, attitudes among people involved in business, the work force, as it used to be called, and management—thank heavens the distinction is now reducing—have become much more flexible and cooperative. A recent survey by Birmingham business school found that only 15 per cent. of manual male workers in Europe worked more than 45 hours a week, while in Britain it was 38 per cent. Therefore, the idea of a British disease and problems with industrial relations is now well and truly buried.
Also significant was the fact, discovered by the CBI, that the value added by British workers when a foreign investor came here was no less than 46 per cent. greater than it was for indigenous British companies. That shows

the flexibility that British workers can show when good management comes in from overseas. Rover has recently been able to show the benefits of changing the role of shop floor workers between sales and manufacturing functions. Former shop floor workers have sold no fewer than 3,000 vehicles in a new range in six weeks—an average of 500 cars a week.
Lemmerz, the biggest German wheelmaker, has decided to move its wheel-making capacity from just outside Bonn to my constituency because it recognises that British costs, competitiveness and workers can produce the goods better than the Germans. It told me that, as a result of the social costs with which the Germans have burdened themselves, 80 per cent. has to be added to the average wage cost, compared with only 35 per cent. in Britain—hence the large movement in investment from Europe to Britain.
Those improvements in productivity will translate into more sales and more jobs only in the medium term. Germany lost 3·3 per cent. of its output last year and Japan lost 8·5 per cent., while the United Kingdom lost just under 1 per cent. Similarly, the proportion in manufacturing industry has dropped, too. In Britain during the past 10 years, it dropped from 26 to 20 per cent. of the work force, in Germany from 41 to 28 per cent. and in Japan from 36 to 29 per cent.
It is estimated that, as manufacturing output has fallen, half of manufacturing workers today are in service jobs. General Motors receives about one fifth of its revenue from the service industry. The Engineering Employers Federation recognises that, between 1982 and 1991, the increase in demand for goods in Britain was about 16 per cent.—that was from the general public, the consumer whom we all serve—while the increase in demand for services was no less than 55 per cent. That is one reason why the number of people employed in services is increasing compared with those in manufacturing.
Nevertheless, despite the improvements in manufacturing productivity during the past few years, we still face a challenge. That was recognised by the CBI in the document that it sent round only today, in which it talks about the United Kingdom still not being internationally competitive. Whatever measure one takes, we are significantly less competitive than the United States and slightly less competitive than the Germans.
How are we to respond to that challenge? It will not be by imbibing the inflexibilities that are connected with the social chapter or the minimum wage, or with an alien attitude towards inward investment—all attitudes shared by the Opposition. Nor will it be an obsession that manufacturing efficiency and competitiveness in the long term can be assured by bunging subsidies into individual companies. We did that when, as taxpayers, we wrote off £750 million in DAF. Sadly, that investment did not do it much good in the long term.
What the Government can do—what I should like to see done—is to make greater use of straight line investment allowances in order to allow industry to write off its capital investment much more quickly than at present. I am not a believer in 100 per cent. capital investment allowances on a permanent basis, because that distorts investment decisions and anyway is an inefficient use of taxpayers' money. However, on a straight line basis, it could be a good thing.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is in charge of reducing regulations. One of the first things he could


consider is VAT inspectors who somehow consider that they have a role as private amateur detectives. I was in a company yesterday which said that it had had forcibly to remove one VAT inspector from its premises because he was so objectionable.
I should like a big increase in one-stop shops. I do not see why they should be run by the training and enterprise councils. Most important of all for the carpet industry is more rigorous monitoring of international standards to ensure that we compete on a level playing field. After five years, despite the ruling of the European Court, the Belgian Government have not been repaid £5 million of illegal subsidies by their biggest carpet manufacturer. There is now evidence that the Walloon regional government has slipped its second largest carpet manufacturer—my constituency has a large number of carpet manufacturers—no less than £6 million in illegal subsidies. If Maastricht is to mean anything at all, it should mean better monitoring in order to take action against such nonsense.
The best way in which the Government could improve the lot of manufacturing industry is by getting out of its way, reducing regulations, reducing taxation and ensuring that inflation is as low as possible, thus allowing industry to become competitive and the British people, with their entrepreneurial spirit, to make their way and thereby retake world markets.
It is no coincidence at all that, during the past 10 years and irrespective of the recession, our present share of world trade has at last started to increase again. It is the result of those policies during the past 10 years.

Mr. Barry Jones: There has been universal praise for the speech by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but the speech by the Secretary of State was one of the most outrageous cynicism. It was full of devices and diversions, but it contained no policy, no hope and no relevance. It was massive in its cheek and tawdry in its vision.
The Prime Minister should adopt a national strategy for economic recovery, and the right hon. Gentleman should encourage the core industry of steel and the highly skilled aerospace industry. I want Britain's 3 million unemployed to be placed at the very top of the political agenda. There is no national future without a strong manufacturing base—manufacturing industry is wealth.
Tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in the aerospace industry. The airbus is a case in point. A factory in my constituency makes the wings for the airbus, but I regret to tell the House that it announced 470 job losses only this week. Apprentices are not to be retained, notwithstanding the wonderful training they were given, and no more apprenticeships are on offer. White collar and blue collar suffer alike. That is a wounding blow, and the whole economy is shocked.
Last week, I attended a roll-out ceremony in Hamburg of the new A321 airbus. In one of the largest hangars that I know, 3,000 people—some of them my constituents—acclaimed that triumph of aeronautical engineering. However, those of my constituents who work at the local

factory returned home to Wales to be informed of the job losses. Those jobs are among the finest and most important in world manufacturing.
The recession apart, President Clinton is threatening the future of the airbus. At the headquarters of the Boeing corporation in Seattle, he told a cheering work force that he meant business against the Europeans. In effect, he played to the Boeing gallery. He should have made a speech along these lines: "Gentlemen of Boeing, the airbus project is not only your most vigorous competitor but technically superior to the aircraft you make. Airbus is knocking lumps out of Boeing."
The Prime Minister should remind President Clinton that Boeing and McDonnell Douglas have received up to $41 million of indirect subsidies since 1976, first from the Defence Department, then from NASA. The Prime Minister should remind him also that British Aerospace has received only £700 million of launch aid, and has already repaid a large amount of that from sales.
I want the Prime Minister, with Britain's manufacturing future in mind, to insist that the United States keeps to the letter of the airbus agreement, and tell President Clinton that he should back off making threats about the airbus, which represents the best of futures for Britain's manufacturing industry. It is the privilege of the Prime Minister to fight for and to defend the airbus.
Also made in my constituency is BAe's world-famous 125 corporate jet, but the work force for that wonderful aircraft are perplexed. The corporate jet headquarters is now registered in Little Rock, Arkansas—the home of the President of the United States. The British work force are proud of their work in making a world-beating aircraft at the Broughton factory, but they are anxious about the 125's long-term future.
I can do no better than quote the works convener, Mike Nesbitt:
Indications are that, in the near future, a large part of the business will transfer to the new 125 Jet headquarters in President Clinton's Arkansas, with resulting loss of British jobs.
I should like a Minister to comment on that. My constituents are helping Britain to make magnificent goods, and is generating earnings from abroad by the making of them. My constituents would like to have their anxieties dispelled.
If we allow the country's manufacturing industry to whither away, we shall be in dire national trouble. We will be unable to fund the welfare state. We know that already £100 billion of North sea revenues have been squandered by successive Conservative Administrations since 1979. In the early 1980s, some 20 per cent. of the nation's manufacturing capacity went to the wall. Officially—although this total is disputed—the number unemployed stands at 3 million. In Wales since 1979, 220,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. In Wales, the construction industry also is reeling.
Britain, Wales and my constituency need a Government who have a national strategy to save what is left of the country's manufacturing industry.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has never been a good forecaster. When he addressed the House on national health reforms in the late 1980s, he forecast mayhem, yet those reforms proved to be a great success—[interruption]


Opposition Members laugh. They forget that many more patients are treated now than five years ago and that doctors have achieved the targets that the hon. Member for Livingston said could not be achieved.
In a more light-hearted vein, I am told that the only people to benefit from the hon. Gentleman's racing forecasts in the Glasgow ?Herald are the bookmakers, because he nearly always gets them wrong. He certainly got it wrong this evening. The hon. Gentleman turns out to be an old-fashioned protectionist who believes that the industries of the 1940s and the 1950s will ensure prosperity in the 21st century.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) complained about unemployment in his constituency. That was particularly rum, coming from a member of a party which at the last general election wanted to legislate 2 million people into unemployment by introducing a national minimum wage, and would deter inward investment by imposing the social chapter and frustrating the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
Labour Members are suffering from collective amnesia. They forget the situation that existed in 1979. Britain's most important manufacturing sector is the automobile industry. In 1979, it was overmanned and over-subsidised, and its industrial relations were so bad that Red Robbo, rather than management, ruled British Leyland. It suffered also from the special car tax. Today, British Leyland's industrial relations have been transformed, special car tax has been abolished, and the British car industry looks forward to being a net exporter again. In February, there was a 16 per cent. increase in new car sales in this country. That is the measure of the transformation, which Labour should support rather than condemn.
Steel is another vital part of our manufacturing base. In 1979, it was nationalised, overmanned and over-subsidised, and among the lame ducks of the European steel industries. Today, it is in the private sector and is regarded as the most efficient steel industry in western Europe. Labour does not understand industry, the process of economic change, and the fact that a market economy is the main engine of economic and social growth. Indeed, Labour Members do not support or understand the market economy. When talking about the market, they seem to imply that it is like a second-hand car boot sale: they simply do not understand that it represents the only way in which to secure growth. Socialism is not the way in which to secure growth.
Let us look at what has happened to our country since 1979. Let us examine all the great industrial changes that have taken place since then, generating greater prosperity for our people. All those changes have been opposed by the Labour party. What has Labour done about industrial relations? When Bills have been presented to improve industrial relations, what have Labour Members said? Have they said that such Bills will create more jobs, or encourage inward investment? Of course not: they are in hock to their paymasters, and they do what their paymasters say, not what the country needs. They have voted against those Bills, seeking to frustrate the Government; they are not concerned about industrial relations in this country.

Hon. Members: Who pays you?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I cannot allow general conversations across the Floor.

Mr. Marshall: I am told that not enough people pay my party. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) would like to give us some names. Then we can ask the organisations concerned whether they will give us some money: I suspect that we need it.
One of the greatest developments since 1979 has been the process of privatisation, which took place in the face of Labour opposition. That great concept has now been copied throughout the western world, in the former communist countries and in Australia, where even the Labour party supports it. The only party in the world that opposes it is the British Labour party, which cannot understand the huge surge in prosperity and investment in formerly socialist industries.
What does Labour want to do to the successful privatised industries to encourage them to become more efficient and successful, and to generate more jobs? It wants to impose a special levy on their profits. Would that do anything for investment in British Steel, British Telecom or Cable and Wireless? Of course it would not. Labour would cut off investment in BT, Cable and Wireless and the water industry, all in the name of socialism—and that is what it calls part of a job-creating package. It is not a job-creating package; it is a job-destroying package.
The record of the privatised companies is first rate. In 1979 British Airways was losing hundreds of millions of pounds, and could not care less about the consumer. No wonder that today, in the private sector, it is the world's favourite airline. Since becoming part of the private sector, British Telecom has increased investment by over 50 per cent., and has also increased productivity: now it is one of the most efficient telecommunications companies, whereas in 1979 it was not. In 1979, the quality of BT's service was second-rate everywhere; today it is first-rate, because BT is in the private sector, and faces competition that it would never have faced without privatisation.
Privatisation transformed whole swathes of British industry: every time an industry was privatised, however, it was privatised in the face of opposition from Labour.
Another great movement over the past 10 years has been investment by Japan and the United States, which has transformed large sectors of our economy. We are now net exporters of television sets, and are becoming net exporters of motor cars, simply because of our success in encouraging new industries to come to Britain. Labour does not understand what encourages such investment. First, we have a low-tax economy; secondly, we are part of the European community. If we had listened to Labour in 1983; we would have walked out of the Community.
Those companies come to Britain for another reason: they know that the social chapter will not be imposed on them here for as long as we have a Conservative Government. They know that they will enjoy the benefit of the single market without the obligations that are imposed on industries in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. That is why Hoover went from Dijon to Cambuslang, and Digital went from Galway to Ayr. Hon. Members should recognise and welcome that, and condemn a political party that seeks to destroy the United Kingdom's attractiveness to inward investors. Every Japanese and American company that comes here creates jobs, and helps the balance of payments.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the balance of payments. Our balance of payments is £20 billion in the red. What has happened?

Mr. Marshall: I think that that figure contains an element of exaggeration. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that inward investment has enabled this country to become a net exporter of television sets, and to become a net exporter of motor cars once more. I am proud of the fact that Nissan cars, manufactured in Britain, sell in Tokyo; the hon. Gentleman should be proud of it, too. It represents the rejuvenation of British manufacturing industry that the present Government have brought about.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I want to talk about the north-east. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) cited successful companies such as Nissan; it should be pointed out that Nissan was given tens of millions of pounds to build a factory in the north-east. That was nothing more than a subsidy for a private company—albeit Japanese—to come to the area.
I do not decry Nissan; it has been a success and is producing cars very cheaply. One of my worries relates to unemployment in the north and in my constituency in particular. The unemployment rate in the north is one of the highest in the United Kingdom and I am concerned about the current trend. I have examined the figures carefully. After the closure of the colliery where I had worked for 27 years, I was unemployed for 12 months, so I have some experience of unemployment. I can tell the House that it is not very nice: it is not pretty, signing on for the dole every week and trying to find work when there is none to be had.
The increase in unemployment is worrying. In the north-east, there has been an 81 per cent. increase since 1979; since 1990, there has been an increase of 32 per cent. Although the area has experienced some success since 1979, there has been a steady increase in unemployment. With the start of the recession of the 1990s, the position has worsened.
Since 1990, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in unemployment among the under-25s in the north-east. In the long term, the position is even worse: unemployment has risen by 49 per cent. since 1990. Manufacturing output has fallen by only 38 per cent. since 1979, but there has still been a great increase in unemployment. Why has there been such a large increase in unemployment, when manufacturing has not suffered to such a great extent?
In my constituency, 33 per cent. of the unemployed population have been unemployed for a year or more. I asked the local employment office whether that was the highest figure that it had ever had. The manager said that since he had been there, there the figure had never been as high. A trend is developing, so I was surprised that the President of the Board of Trade did not even mention unemployment in his speech. He was just one bag of wind, talking about nothing but himself.
Engineering manufacturing has dropped by 11 per cent. in the north-east. We have heard tonight that the outlook for the miners is not very rosy, especially in the north-east. Many engineering companies in the north-east depend upon the mines, so if the pits in the north-east have to close, unemployment will double.
We have heard about privatisation in the debate, but I remember what happened under nationalisation before privatisation. I remember that when, under nationalisation, the boards wanted to raise the price of electricity and coal, Governments, including Tory Governments, did not allow them to raise their prices. The Government laid a dead hand on nationalised industries, but as soon as these industries were privatised, the bills doubled, then trebled and then quadrupled. Before we knew where we were, the bills were enormous. That has been proved; the figures are there for all to see. Privatisation is not efficient. All that has happened is that prices have increased. I ask the Minister to look at the price increases that these so-called wonderful privatised industries have introduced.

Mr. John Marshall: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in industries such as telecommunications, the regulator has imposed a formula that ensures that prices go up by very much less than any increase in the cost of living, and that in 1993 they will go down?

Mr. Campbell: I will give a little bit there because, of all the privatised industries, British Telecom is the best, but that has not happened to electricity and gas prices. There has been an enormous increase in those bills since privatisation. I challenge the Minister to bring those figures to the Dispatch Box.
The former Prime Minister referred to rolling back the carpet of socialism, so I look at what rolling back the carpet of socialism has done to this country. I see that manufacturing is disappearing. I also see unemployed people, particularly unemployed young people. One of my sons is out of work and struggling to find some sort of job somewhere in my constituency.
Last weekend we read in our local Newcastle newspaper, the Sunday Sun, that the Department of Social Security in Long Benton, which deals with unemployment claims, is to have its work put out to contract. An American company that uses child labour in the Philippines, at 38p an hour, is to be asked to do the work. Over 1,000 jobs in the Long Benton DSS office will disappear. They will be done by deaf mutes in the Philippines. Those are the sort of people who are used by American companies to do computer work. It is a disgrace that the Government are allowing that contract to go ahead, with the loss of over 1,000 jobs.
Unemployment is the greatest evil of our time. It was an evil in the 1930s and it is an evil now. I never like trying to connect unemployment with crime, but when young people have idle hands and nothing to do they create trouble. When we see kids on the street stealing cars and doing all these other things, we have to ask ourselves why they are not working. When I left school—25 of us left school at the same time—half of us went to work at the local colliery, while the other half went to build ships. Now they are going to close the collieries. The Swan Hunter shipyard might also close. Where will these kids find jobs? Of course they are on the streets. Of course they are causing trouble. They have no hope. They have no vision. They have nothing, because the Government have given them nothing. YTS is not the answer for these young kids.
I ask the Minister to look at providing decent apprenticeship schemes. Nowadays, I never hear of kids who are apprentices. My local authority has had to cut out apprenticeships because it does not have the money for them. Like most other authorities, it has been capped.
The young are the most important people in this country. Crime is increasing because unemployment is increasing. I believe that the two go together and that they should be dealt with very quickly.

Dr. Liam Fox: One of the constant threads through the debate has been the so-called long-term decline of British manufacturing. That ought to worry any hon. Member. It was a worry at one time. Throughout the 20 years until 1982, the United Kingdom's share of world manufacturing exports fell from 15 to 8 per cent., almost halving our share of manufacturing exports. That was a worry for the Conservative Government who were in power for part of that time. It does not come well from the Opposition to lecture us about manufacturing decline when the greatest part of our decline in manufacturing exports since the second world war came during the period when they were in power for the longest period.
When we came to power in 1979, we were faced with many problems in the British economy that had become almost intractable, not the least of which was nationalisation. Under nationalisation, our economy was never given a chance to work. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) put his finger on the point when he said that it was a dead hand. That is exactly what nationalisation was. No economic decisions were made under nationalisation. Only political decisions were made. They plagued the economy. It was never allowed to function in the market-oriented way that business needs if it is to survive. There was no market discipline whatsoever under nationalisation. Politicians made decisions that suited their constituencies, not the country's economy.
When we came to power, we inherited subsidy, protection, import restriction, inefficiency, overmanning, restrictive practices, frequent strikes and, as a legacy of the last Labour Government because of their Industrial Relations Act 1976, the strikers' charter. We had to deal with those problems through our supply-side reforms. We introduced five employment Acts, all of which were opposed by the Labour party and by the trade union movement, whose greatest wish, from 1979 onwards, seemed to be to see Britain's vitals displayed on a bed of lettuce internationally. We decided that the problem had to be tackled head on.
Last year, 500,000 working days were lost due to industrial disputes. In 1979, when we came to power, 29 million working days were lsot due to industrial disputes. It has fallen to the lot of the Conservative Government to come to the rescue of the British work force against the trade union barons and the wishes of the Labour party.
There has been another spin-off. There are now better management practices. We have removed the dead hand of Government interference at every level of management practice. Therefore, better management has developed. I believe that we shall see the development of even better management. Further supply-side reform is still required. There needs to be further deregulation. Under the previous Labour Government, there were 27,000 different kinds of regulation, all of which have been abolished.
The most important factor has been privatisation. Forty-six major businesses have been privatised; two thirds of the state sector has returned to where it belongs, in the private sector. Since then we have seen massive

increases in productivity. Someone mentioned British Steel earlier—in 1979, because of the ridiculous overmanning that existed in the industry, it took 13·2 man hours to produce a tonne of steel; now it takes 4·8 man hours. Under nationalised British Leyland, we produced six cars per employee in 1979; under privatised Rover, we produce 25 cars per employee.
There was more. We decided that we needed a low-tax, low-inflation regime if business was to thrive. Our corporation tax is now lower than that in any other European Community or G7 country. Our small company rate has come down from 42 to 25 per cent., and our inflation, which averaged 15·5 per cent. between 1974 and 1979, peaking at 26·9 per cent.—[interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may laugh at that, but it is nothing to laugh at; it is rather a matter for shame.

Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman care to explain the part that the Barber boom Budget played in inflation before we started to get it under control?

Dr. Fox: Yes, indeed. Any Government who fail to control monetary policy will certainly get a bout of inflation. We are perfectly willing to accept that mistakes were made in 1987–88—but for the Labour party to pretend that for its entire period of office it was stuck with the legacies of a Conservative Government is nonsense, considering that the Labour Government refused to impose any discipline whatever except that imposed by the International Monetary Fund—when they absolutely had to accept it, because the country was broke.
Between 1982 and 1989 manufacturing output grew by an average of 3·7 per cent. a year, and manufacturing exports by an average of 6 per cent. per year. Manufacturing investment—which the Labour party claims does not exist—grew by 7·5 per cent. per year. All three reached all-time records.
I do not expect the Labour party to understand that. Labour Members do not understand market economics, and believe that everything is measured by the number of people employed in an industry. They do not believe that health is measured by the number of patients treated; they believe that it is measured by the amount of money spent and the number of people employed. We have given up trying to educate Labour Members. Perhaps we should simply stick to the facts. We do not expect them to understand that, in 1990, profitability was 50 per cent. higher than its previous peak in 1979. They do not understand profits or dividends.
Since 1981, United Kingdom manufacturing exports have grown by 66 per cent. more than those of any other G7 country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, we are now a net exporter of television sets, with a trade surplus of £440 million last year. Scotland supplies 40 per cent. of the desktop computers used in Europe—and those exports now earn twice as much as whisky exports. Those are all great achievements. It is beyond me why the Labour party always refuses to accept anything good that happens in this country.
We have hit specific problems with the recession, but the 7·5 per cent. fall in output that has taken place during the recession is only half the fall that occurred during the 1981 recession—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras laughs while I am making this


important point. He probably fails to understand that the current recession is caused by a lack of demand, and not by a structural incapacity to supply. The Opposition's great weakness—if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to listen to him—is that, according to their logic, we cannot recover from a 7·5 per cent. fall in output. Yet from a fall in output twice as big in 1981, we recovered to reach record levels of output, exports and investment, as I have already said. I do not see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras jumping up now to defend the logic of this case.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why demand has fallen?

Dr. Fox: Demand has fallen because there is a fall in consumer confidence, because the money supply in this country was out of kilter, and because there is an international recession. I should have thought that even the economic simpletons on the Opposition Front Bench might have managed to understand that.
I want to say one or two things about our manufacturing companies. Despite Labour attempts to rewrite history, our success in the 1980s did not extend only to the service sector. Between 1979 and 1990 about 4,300 manufacturing companies were created per year, compared with 1,200 per year between 1963 and 1979, when we came to office. That is a proud record. The number of VAT-registered businesses in manufacturing has increased from 144,000 in 1980 to 171,000 now. That is another record of which I am proud.
There are problems with our manufacturing base in that it forms a smaller proportion of our GDP than it once did, but the fastest fall took place between 1960 and 1983. If we measure GDP at constant 1985 prices, our proportion of GDP from manufacturing industry has risen from 20·4 to 20·9 per cent.—[Interruption.] Labour Members are jeering, because that is the only intellectual level that they can achieve. They cannot understand that the United Kingdom now has specific advantages.
We have a stable democracy with a stable Government who have already been in office for a long time—although nothing like as long as they will be in office. We have a free-market Government admired by our competitors, we have English as the natural trading language, we have a competitive tax regime, low interest rates, good industrial relations—the Labour party never managed to give us those—and now we have a competitive exchange rate free from the strictures of the exchange rate mechanism, good international transport links—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Ms Estelle Morris: I was disappointed by the opening speech of the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that industry is now looking for a new approach and wants him to signal that he is prepared to listen and to work with it. The fact that he did not do so will be regretted by the people who are in industry trying to make it work.
I represent an area whose history reads like a history of manufacturing industry in this country. Birmingham and

the west midlands have been central to our country's development. Our region has been the home for steel and iron, coal and cloth, cars and aeroplanes. It has helped to create the wealth of this nation. Its people have been inventors, designers, entrepreneurs and engineers. But because our prosperity depends on the manufacturing industry, under the Conservative Government it, and our future, are in jeopardy.

Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Morris: No, I am sorry—because of the time limit I shall not give way.
The west midlands now has the third worst unemployment record in Britain. It has the largest number of long-term unemployed people. Unemployment among the under-25s has almost doubled over the past three years alone. The west midlands has seen the largest reduction in the number of people in work anywhere in the country.
When we consider the statistics surrounding manufacturing industry, it is not hard to see why that is. We have experienced the biggest loss of manufacturing jobs anywhere in the country. One fifth of all jobs lost in the nation's manufacturing sector have been lost in the west midlands. The effect on Birmingham and the other cities in the region has been devastating. Fifty people are chasing every job vacancy; £2·6 billion is being spent every year on keeping people out of work. Month after month, the list of household name companies that are making workers redundant grows—Alvis and Tarmac, Lucas and GKN, Cadbury and Rover.
Which constituency in Birmingham has had the highest increase in unemployment over the past three years? It is not Sparkbrook, Small Heath or Yardley—my constituency—but the leafy, affluent suburb represented by the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). The right hon. Gentleman has seen unemployment in his constituency increase by 127 per cent. over the past three years. That is how widespread unemployment is in the city of Birmingham. That is the depth of the recession in the west midlands.
The Government cannot escape their share of responsibility, as they seek to do time and time again. Opposition Members and some people outside the House are saying that we have a do-nothing Government—a Government with a hands-off approach, who do not intervene—and I share that view. Although that may be true, what is more worrying is that, when they do intervene, they get it wrong. They intervened to raise interest rates and factories closed; they intervened to reduce local council spending and redundancies increased; and they intervened to increase VAT and consumer demand dropped. I am not sure whether we are better off when the Government intervene or when they do not. Whichever approach they take, they get the formula wrong again and again.
The most common message that I get from industrialists and workers in my constituency, in Birmingham and in the west midlands is that, because the Government do not understand them, they cannot help them. They say so because they have looked at the evidence. They tell me that a Government who understood industry would not have had a tax regime which deterred


investment, and that a Government who understood industry would not cut money for training and would regulate bank lending policy.
What the Government do not realise—and why industrialists feel that they do not understand them—is that if they are going to support manufacturing industry, they must take into account the consequences upon it of their actions. If one cuts spending on education, has no energy policy, and has no programme for re-skilling people, one damages industry.
As the Engineering Employers Federation said, when launching its "Manifesto for Jobs and Growth" last year:
The United Kingdom is an industrial nation with al., anti-industrial culture.
Nowhere can that be seen better than in Birmingham during the past six months.
When the President of the Board of Trade announced his pit closure programme last September, he seemed not to have given any thought to its effect on the rest of manufacturing industry. When he gave his reasons for the decision, I never heard him say how much he had taken that into account, but £100 million of British manufacturing money is tied up in the mining industry, and half as much again in exports. If, because of pit closures, the home market for that sector of manufacturing industry falls, their export market could go as well.
Latch and Bachelor, in my constituency, is not a mining firm and does not dig coal but manufactures the finest winding gear in the world. It is a small family firm, with a history going back 270 years in Birmingham, and it has orders for 30 of our mines and an export order book worth £1 million. Last September, that firm's survival was put at risk because the President of the Board of Trade did not appear to have considered the effects of his coal plan on the rest of manufacturing industry.
The plan affects not only Latch and Bachelor but firms throughout the west midlands, such as John Butlin, which provides transport, J. J. Gallagher, which does construction work, and Lyndhurst engineering, the millwrights. The future of all those manufacturing companies is tied up with that of British Coal.
Last September, the President of the Board of Trade turned his back not only on the mining industry and mining communities but on manufacturing industries and their communities. Within six months, having not learned his lesson, he did exactly the same again. He failed to deliver when Leyland DAF needed short-term help to ensure a secure and profitable long-term future. Again, it was as though he was blinkered to the effects of any decline or closure of Leyland DAF on the whole manufacturing sector.
Leyland DAF is not all that is at risk. There are also the firms that tool their equipment, those that sell them parts and those that manufacture materials. They are all victims of a Government who will not put manufacturing industry at the heart of their industrial policy, and that is what the EEF meant when it talked about an industrial nation that is trying to operate in "an anti-industrial culture".
Government manufacturing policy lacks a strategy, vision and cohesion. Unless someone in the Government begins to draw the threads together and to put manufacturing industry at the centre of Government considerations, we shall not climb out of the recession and we shall not bring jobs back.
Yet, even in these difficult times, there is great optimism in the west midlands and in Birmingham, where we have

great reason for feeling that we can succeed. We have a highly skilled work force and people who are willing to learn skills and new skills. We have women and men with ideas, inventions and initiative, industrialists with ambition and local authorities that wish to support them. That is what the west midlands manufacturing sector has to offer this nation. Quite honestly, it is an offer that the Government cannot afford to turn down.
However, in accepting what the west midlands has to offer to the regeneration of the economy and industry, the Government have to make a commitment to a partnership. Their role is to end short-termism, to invest in training, to spread knowledge about new technology, to support research, to adopt a tax structure to help investment and —most of all—to give a commitment to listen and to take their share of responsibility.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). She referred to this country's cultural problems over manufacturing industry, but I suspect that she and other Opposition Members would concede that the origins of those problems go far deeper into our history than recent events or Governments.
The hon. Member for Yardley also spoke of her constituency. It is common ground in the House this evening that jobs in our constituencies, including mine, depend on the success of manufacturing industry.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly, because of my link with the parliamentary all-party group for engineering development, and my attempt, so far as one can specialise in this House, to maintain my interest in it in recent years.
I hope that two basic themes will emerge from my remarks. First, hon. Members and people outside should not talk down the achievements of our manufacturing industry, which are very great. I was able to discuss that at greater length during a Christmas Adjournment debate on engineering on Monday 14 December, which lasted one and a half hours.
The second theme is that it is important that we remain ahead of our competitors in technical developments and innovation. If we do not remain ahead if them in research, development and innovation, there will be no future for our manufacturing industry, no matter what other policies the Government put in place. Those remarks have implications for education, training and skills. I think that the Secretary of State for Employment is going to reply to the debate, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pass on the message to the Department that it is good to pay tribute to the efforts that my hon. Friends are making to improve our skills training, to the good of manufacturing industry.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was reticent on the question of productivity, which is crucial to the success of our manufacturing industry. That was not surprising, because, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the league table for productivity growth among major industrial nations—a very poor record.
Bearing in mind the remarks made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman at the start of the debate, it is important to remind the House of the appalling record of


Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s. It reduced our ability to compete in world markets. My hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) made very clearly indeed—much more effectively than I have time to do—the point that those were the years of overmanning, of ineffective management, of industrial chaos. But under the present Government, we are making productivity gains that are crucial to the success of our manufacturing industry. Technical innovation and improved productivity must be the right way forward.
A recent CBI report said that the achievements of our manufacturing industry tend to be played down or ignored. It referred to the attitude of the media. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) talked about the popularity of the media as a career for young people. I was as horrified as my hon. Friends, and, indeed, Opposition Members, at my hon. Friend's revelation. Ultimately, the media have a responsibility—a responsibility that they are not facing up to—to emphasise the positive with regard to our achievements in engineering and manufacturing and our concern in general. Undoubtedly they have a right to criticise and to probe. They have a right to uncover things that are going wrong, but they also have a responsibility to emphasise our achievements and successes. The CBI was right to draw attention to this matter.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has drawn attention in recent speeches to the current deficit in manufactured goods and to the need to increase our share of trade in capital goods. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are right to continue to emphasise the importance of manufacturing industry, which has been a common theme in this debate. Hardly a day passes without a leading industrialist arguing against any half-hearted commitment to Europe and the single market. Progress with the single market and with the Maastricht treaty is vital to the future of trade and of manufacturing industry.
I should like to place on record my hope that, under the leadership of the present Government, we can get through the process of ratifying the Maastricht treaty as soon as possible—hopefully, with more assistance from Opposition Members than we have had in recent debates. That is where the responsibility for the current delay lies. Opposition Members who, like me, support the early ratification of the Maastricht treaty ought to adopt a more responsible attitude. But this is not a debate on the Maastricht treaty. We have had enough of those for the time being.
It is high-tech companies that will lead the way. The link between technical progress and industrial progress has been well supported by all the academic research and literature that has been studied by those of us who have the time to do so. Success in high-level technology comes from the correct deployment of engineering and manufacturing skills.
I should like to put on record a number of things that I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will do their best to encourage. I hope that they will do all they can to encourage an increase in the amount of research and development going on in our companies. I hope that, in collaboration with their colleagues in the Department of Education, they will do all they can to

increase the number of support personnel trained at NVQ levels 3 and 4. After all, we have a good record in the production of skilled engineers at the very top level. We do not have such a good record in the production of the technician support that is needed in industry. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that point on board. I have made it before, and I shall no doubt return to it.
I hope that Ministers will do all they can to move away from short-termism, which has been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is indeed a problem. Those responsible for investing in industry need to look more to the long term.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will look at the current structure of engineering in this country and do what they can to support those in the profession who are trying to end its rather hierarchical and Victorian organisation. I realise that this is something the profession has to do itself, but if we can encourage the process, that will be to the benefit of manufacturing industry.
The question of attitude and culture has been referred to. As a nation, we need to accept that our future prosperity and self-respect depend on our attitude to creative and innovative work in industry. Conservative Governments since 1979 have helped industry by sharpening incentives, curbing excessive union power, curbing inflation, which is now down to 1·7 per cent.—the lowest level for 25 years—and facilitating the continuous process of deregulation and the removal of red tape. Of course, all of this is diametrically opposite to the job-destroying panaceas that have been deployed by Opposition Members, not only today but in earlier policy pronouncements.
Our aim must be to make sure that British industry is at the forefront of technical advance. I, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, shall do all I can to support Ministers in their endeavours to encourage this. We must take every opportunity to make our manufacturing industry a success.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: In a debate on manufacturing, it is important that someone from Coventry should make a contribution. I am aware of the fact that many hon. Members want to take part, and, in effect, I am speaking also for my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson).
Having heard other hon. Members refer to manufacturing interests in their constituencies, I must say that Coventry had the lot. Coventry was at the heart of the manufacturing industry of this country. It is known for cars, but we had machine tools, defence, the aircraft industry. A roll call of the names of the companies that existed in Coventry is an indication of the very basis of British industry as it was—Jaguar, Peugeot, Talbot, Standard-Triumph, Alfred Herbert, Wickman, Webster and Bennett, Rolls Royce, GEC. We had them all.
I suppose that, with the restructuring that took place, it was inevitable that some of those names would disappear. But some of them disappeared unnecessarily because of the policies that the Conservatives have pursued since they came to power. We have had roller-coaster policies, with no stability, no strategy and no thought for the basic wealth creation of the country.
The first part of the roller-coaster was the deepest and worst recession that we have seen since the 1930s. In the first couple of years of the Conservative Administration, we lost 20 per cent. of our manufacturing base—20 per cent. that disappeared, never to reappear. That was a hammer blow to places like Coventry, where the 20 per cent. was absolutely disproportionate. The economy and communities were decimated.
The second part of the roller-coaster was the crazy, unplanned, unthought-out consumer boom of the 1980s, when we were told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—what a wonderful Chancellor he was: unassailable and with all the other qualities that were attributed to him—that we had achieved an economic miracle and made the breakthrough. We had a consumer boom based almost entirely on an appalling level of personal debt, which was deliberately encouraged to reach such heights that the second recession was inevitable. What we are experiencing now is the longest, if not the deepest, recession since the war.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that Conservative Members have made much of the interventionist policies of previous Labour Governments and certain Conservative ones. Is it not ironic that the President of the Board of Trade offered nothing to assist industries, especially those in the west midlands and in Coventry in particular? After all, in the early 1970s, it was a Conservative Government who had to intervene on behalf of the aircraft industry in Coventry. Had they not done so, we would have no aircraft industry today.
Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is ironic that, within the next few days, Rolls-Royce is due to announce a number of redundancies, as yet unquantified, which will have a serious effect not only on that company but on its subcontractors and general employment opportunities in the city?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a long intervention.

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the continuing recession will add to the unemployment problem in Coventry.
In this second recession, some 7,200 of my constituents are now unemployed. In the past two years, the number of people who have been thrown out of work has gone up by 57 per cent. I accept that that increase might be lower than that suffered in other areas, but that is simply because we started from such an appallingly high level of unemployment. Parts of my constituency and other parts of Coventry have been in recession for as long as the Government have been in power. We have had not: two and a half years of recession, but 14 years of it, because Coventry is a manufacturing city and it is at the heart of our manufacturing base. For 14 years, however, the Government have not given a damn about manufacturing.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: No, I will not, because of the time limit on speeches.
In many parts of Coventry, the recession has lasted for a full 14 years, and the city has suffered from all the social problems that arise from that and which cost the rest of us

dear. People tend to ignore the cost of unemployment and see it as a personal tragedy for those who have lost their jobs, but it costs the rest of us a great deal.
We were recently told that the Prime Minister had undergone a transformation; that he had come to the conclusion that, after all, the manufacturing base was important. He said that he had always held that view—unlike his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was extremely vocal in his support of manufacturing when he was out of power but who changed his tune when he got back into it.
The only puzzle is why on earth the Prime Minister never said anything in support of manufacturing while he sat in Cabinet meetings with his predecessor. We know that she was a formidable lady, but it seems that the Prime Minister kept absolutely quiet and said absolutely nothing about his heartfelt views on the importance of the manufacturing industry. Despite its alleged importance, nothing was done until now, when, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister recognised that his views, which were once held by the minority, are now held by the majority. Where on earth was he when all the lasting damage was done to our basic national interest?

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is it not true that, if this Pauline, Damascene conversion of the Prime Minister to the cause of manufacturing is sincere, the Budget could be used to restore capital allowances? That would give impetus to the investment that is needed in the west midlands, in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the city of Coventry.

Mr. Ainsworth: I agree. That is not the only thing that could be done, but it could offer constructive help to support the manufacturing base.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: No, I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman should get one of his hon. Friends to give him some time.
I remember the "Labour isn't Working" campaign that the Conservative party waged during its 1979 election campaign. How hollow those words now seem. In 14 years, the manufacturing base of this country has shrunk from providing 32 per cent. of our output to providing just 20 per cent. It is widely recognised that our manufacturing base is no longer of a size to support the living standards that we all wish to enjoy. We have become an economic pigmy and a second-world nation.
The CBI has been quoted in support of the Government, but it has recently stated that our manufacturing base is
as yet insufficient to provide the critical mass necessary for a successful manufacturing economy.
That is what 14 years of Tory rule has brought us. I attended a recent meeting with Mr. Howard Davies of the CBI. Conservative Members may tell us that there are signs of a recovery, but he said that those signs are no stronger than they were last May. He said that any recovery was simply discount-led.
I believe that we are being told about signs of a recovery deliberately to avoid any effective action being taken in the Budget next week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), has suggested, the Budget could be one for jobs, recovery and investment. If that does not happen, it will be an absolute tragedy. That is what has been promised, and that is what we should be able to expect.
We should invest in our people. Let us see some sign of such investment from the Government in the Budget next week. Let us judge them on what they do, not on what they say.

Mr. Rod Richards: I believe that it was the 16th century Englishman, John Heywood, who said:
Who is so deaf or blind as is he
That wilfully will neither hear nor see?
He could so easily have been writing about today's Labour party. His words would be a fitting epigram for a party that came in with the 20th century and will go out with it. It has been in opposition for such a long time that it can no longer distinguish between opposing the Government and opposing the country. That is why the Labour party takes every possible opportunity to spread doom and gloom whenever there is good news about the economy. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, whatever is good news for the country is bad news for the Labour party. The disgraceful vote by the Labour party last night against the Maastricht treaty is the latest addition to a long chapter of treachery against our economy.
I propose to use the parameters laid down by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as a measure of the manufacturing sector, but I shall refer particularly to the manufacturing industry of Wales. Since 1983, the number of people employed in manufacturing in Wales has increased by some 3·3 per cent., and among ladies employment has increased by 12 per cent. Even if one uses the unfavourable year of 1986 as the base for such a comparison, the total number of people working in the manufacturing sector in Wales has gone up by 5 per cent. Since 1983, output in Wales has gone up by almost 32 per cent., and manufacturing investment has gone up by almost 150 per cent.
It is interesting to consider the contribution that the Welsh manufacturing sector has made to the gross domestic product. In 1983, that contribution stood at 22·2 per cent., but by 1991 it had risen to 25·5 per cent. —an increase of 14·5 per cent. Since 1980, more than 800 manufacturing plants have opened in Wales, with the creation of 50,000 jobs.

Mr. Peter Hain: How many have closed?

Mr. Richards: That is exactly what I mean—the Labour party always looks at the negative side, never the positive.
Recent evidence of growth in Wales is provided by the third-quarter index of production and construction for 1992, which showed that output had gone up by 1.4 per cent. on the previous quarter. A CBI survey on January 26 this year showed that business optimism had increased significantly. The chairman of the Welsh CBI, Sir Peter Phillips, said:
These results are encouraging and indicate that Welsh manufacturing firms began 1993 with improved expectations and greater optimism.
Many countries abroad invest in Wales, Japan in particular. The Japanese say that Wales is the most popular location in the United Kingdom for their consumer electronics manufacturers. That is no small wonder when one considers that companies such as Hitachi, Kyushu, Matsushita, Orion, Sharp and Sony and

many others are among them. In a survey of Japanese companies that invest in Wales, one explanation given by all of them for investing in Wales is "the co-operative attitude of Government", to quote them.
Economic commentators also agree about the optimistic state of manufacturing in Wales. The chief economist of the National Westminster Bank said recently of the Welsh economy:
The economy has become much more diversified than it was 10 years ago. An increasingly competitive and enterprising manufacturing sector is replacing more traditional industries, while the prominent financial and business services sector has become a major source of employment".
The Labour party frequently attempts to cast a slur on the jobs that come to Wales. I draw their attention to a study conducted by the Cardiff business school, called "Japanese Investment in Wales: Economic and Social Consequences", which highlighted the research and development work being undertaken. Researchers found that, of the 23 manufacturing companies surveyed, nine had undertaken design work with one consumer electronics manufacturer intending to transfer major development work from Japan within the next couple of years.
When the Labour party talks about Wales, it is talking about south Wales. I was fascinated the other day to learn that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), in announcing an economic strategy for the whole of Wales, announced what amounted to no more than an itinerary for his hon. Friend to tour the Valleys. There was no mention of the manufacturing area in north Wales which I represent. I point out to the Labour party that, in the county of Clwyd, where my constituency is, since 1983 there have been 2,500 projects, amounting to an investment of £1 billion, creating 13,500 new jobs and protecting 2,700 other jobs.
I say to the President of the Board of Trade that it is crucial for the future economy of Clwyd, notwithstanding all the good news and good investment that has taken place in the past 14 years, that the Hamilton gas development in Liverpool bay takes place. It is important, not only to north Wales, but also to Merseyside. Some £1.5 billion of investment and several thousand jobs are at stake.
I urge my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to give the go-ahead to the Connah's Quay power station, notwithstanding that he has the difficult choice to make between gas and coal. For my part of north Wales, it is vital that the Connah's Quay power station gets the go-ahead, and that the Hamilton gas project is also allowed to proceed.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have to confess that after a decade spent working in television and a lifetime spent working in the Labour party, I am a great lover of melodrama, bad theatre and genuine ham acting. That was why I loved the speech given by the President of the Board of Trade today. It was a wonderful rant. He is becoming the Government's all-purpose rant boy. There is no problem so bad that it cannot be concealed by trundling out the President to give us a rant here in the Chamber.
As for the other piece of bad theatre, I am really enthusiastic about watching the deathbed repentance scene that is being enacted by the entire Government after


14 years of clobbering, weakening, undermining and destroying manufacturing industry in this country. They now discover in extremis and in Downing street—they are probably the same place these days—that manufacturing is vital to the economy and that we need policies to rebuild the manufacturing heart of this economy.
I am delighted that the repentance has come, but my worry is that it has probably come to late. Does the Prime Minister really mean it? He is moving from policy to policy like a drunk from lamp post to lamp post and one does not know whether he is just attaching himself to this lamp post and hiccupping slowly for a short while before moving off to another lamp post in that haphazard process that constitutes Government policy these days. Does he really mean it?
It seems to me that the hope is that a kind of devaluation a la 1972 and 1973—a half ton of Ted, a little dollop of Bexley Sidcup devaluation—will alleviate the pain. Coming out of the exchange rate mechanism and letting the pound go down and getting the benefits of the growth as he did is the hope, but I am afraid that it will not work, because the problems of manufacturing are too deep-seated and the damage inflicted on manufacturing is too great for a little respray job, and the alleviation of the pain that has come with the pound going down, to work this time.
We have a very deep-seated problem. The essence of it is that in this country, manufacturing output at the end of last year compared to 1970 is up by only 14 per cent. That is a record that has been equalled by no other country. Most manufacturing nations have increased their output by more than half and some have doubled in that period. Ours is up by 14 per cent., demand is up and that demand has been filled by imports. This is the key weakness of manufacturing and because output in this country has hardly gone up, demand is met by imports. Imports of finished manufactures are up by 754 per cent. in value since 1970 whereas exports of finished manufactures by value are up by 153 per cent.
Therein lies the disaster, and the process of imports getting a deeper hold on our market than in any other competing economy. Manufacturing imports filled 37 per cent. of demand, on the last figures published by this Government. That was in 1989. They have stopped publishing the figures, so far as I can see, but it must now be about 42 per cent., double the proportion taken by manufactured imports in Germany, Italy and France. Therein lies the weakness of our manufacturing, which is losing its place. Therein lies the gaping balance of payments deficit that now obsesses the House. The value of imports of manufactures in 1992 exceeded exports by 12 per cent. We are just not paying our way in the world.
Unless we produce, we cannot consume—and we cannot produce enough. That is the problem. Therein lies the loss of 3·5 million jobs in manufacturing. Usually, Conservative Members just attack Labour, but their only intelligent argument today has been that all manufacturing countries' manufacturing work forces are shrinking. That is certainly true, but nowhere has the shrinkage been as great as in this country. Those countries are producing much more with fewer workers. We are producing slightly more with a lot fewer workers—3·5 million fewer.
The difficulty that the Government face is that they have stumbled into devaluation—they were forced into a competitive devaluation without understanding it. It is certainly true that an overvalued exchange rate has

constituted most of the cause of the problem. The fight against inflation led to higher exhange rates to keep imports cheap. Then there was the impact of North sea oil and the influence of finance, which wants a high and stable exchange rate, unlike the manufacturing sector. Then there was the fact of our deflated economy for much of the period. All these factors have meant high exchange rates.
The costs of production as opposed to the costs of imported manufactured goods have, because of the exchange rate, risen by 39 per cent. since 1970. No supermarket that increased its prices by 39 per cent. compared with those of the competition would survive. How can a manufacturing nation that has done exactly that survive?
The only way to get out of this is to reverse what has been happening. If overvaluation has caused the contraction of industry, it will be restored only by a competitive currency, and that will revive industry. Unfortunately, the devaluation to achieve this has to be bigger than the loss of competitiveness caused by overvaluation. Once we have lost markets it is much more difficult to win them back. We need a large devaluation to get a competitive exchange rate and the only definition of a competitive exchange rate is one with which a nation can balance its trade in conditions of full employment and high and sustainable growth. All other definitions are fallacious and a burden on industry.
We have gone only part of the way to that necessary devaluation: 16 per cent. as opposed to the 39 per cent. increase in prices. We must go further, because the only way to restore the damage is to replace imports in the British market. It is difficult to increase exports because it is difficult to set up the distribution networks, the more so in the depressed conditions of the export markets, but if we can replace imports—roll back the tide of imports—by a deliberate policy of import substitution, using the price mechanism to make imports dearer and domestic production more competitive, we can then reverse the disaster.
I offer the Prime Minister a slogan: if it is not hurting the importers, it is not working. That is the keynote of the strategy of regeneration. The problem is far greater than the Government have conceded it to be. The easy, quick devaluation that we have had hitherto goes only part of the way to solving it. There is a great deal more to do. I could give a long prescription—training, investment, industrial strategy and working with manufacturing industry to expand and widen the industrial base. I hope that that is what the Government will begin to do, after all these years of doing the opposite. I hope that this is not just another lamp post.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am pleased to be able to contribute, albeit briefly, to the debate, because manufacturing industry is extremely important in my constituency. Blackpool tends to be thought of only as a centre of the tourist industry. Those who know it only from occasional visits to party conferences may not realise how significant its manufacturing industry is. It is a large employer in the area, and we have a number of extremely successful companies, not only in local terms but in world terms. For instance, we have one of the leading British manufacturers of toys, having to compete with low wage


costs elsewhere in the world—especially in China—which is continuing to expand its product range and enjoying a great deal of success.
We also have one of the most successful manufacturing companies in the production of street furniture, which it sells to municipal authorities throughout the United Kingdom and the world. Just outside my constituency, where it employs a large number of my constituents, we have part of ICI and, significantly, part of British Aerospace which, in recent months, has successfully attracted orders for the Tornado from Saudi Arabia and for the European fighter aircraft, now known as EFA 2000. The thousands of my constituents who work in manufacturing industry, especially those who work for British Aerospace, know that they have the Government and the Prime Minister to thank for securing their jobs.
I spent six years working in business, commerce and industry before coming to the House, and others with similar experience find it unacceptable that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should laugh himself silly whenever my hon. Friends praise the strength of British manufacturing industry. People working at the sharp end of manufacturing do not take kindly to the hon. Gentleman's jibes.
It is a tough manufacturing world out there, and one reason why the unreconstructed clause 4 socialists whom the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras epitomises are badly derided by those who lead manufacturing industry is that they know that few Opposition Members have ever spent a day doing anything productive in British industry. The vast majority of them have no experience of manufacturing of any sort, which is why they still regard profit as a dirty word.
Opposition Members still talk about imposing windfall taxes and establishing more bureaucracy. Indeed, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gave as his recipe for manufacturing industry the establishment of more bureaucracy, more bodies, more quangos and more levies. Such a regime would not be appreciated by those who run manufacturing industry or those who work in it on the shop floor, whom Labour Members claim to represent. They do not represent the interests of British manufacturing industry in any form, and that is becoming increasingly clear from Opposition speeches on the subject.
I could hardly believe my ears when the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said that he believed in the dead hand of nationalised industry. Nor could I believe it when I heard the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) talk about what had gone wrong with manufacturing industry in his area. I lived and worked in Coventry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The cause of the decline and collapse of manufacturing there, and throughout the west midlands, was the appalling union militancy.
Anyone representing a west midlands constituency who glosses over the history of Red Robbo and all the militant unionism that caused the downfall of manufacturing is trying to rewrite history, as Labour Members often try to do. My hon. Friends and I will not let them get away with that. We have no intention of allowing them to hoodwink the British people.
Those who have worked in manufacturing industry in the last 15 to 20 years remember only too well the days of

what became known as the British disease, when Britain was the sick man of Europe. They were the days of the last Labour Government, in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras served—[Interruption.]—rather, I should have said that he was a prospective candidate at that time. I remember it because I campaigned against him in the 1979 general election with my hon. Friend who now represents Salisbury.
I recall vividly the ways in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tried to defend the appalling record of trade union militancy. He now seeks to rewrite history, but I assure him that those who run manufacturing industry will not take kindly to his lighthearted approach to the whole issue. I am concerned to ensure that, when we discuss manufacturing, we take the advice of those at the sharp end and, for example, listen to the CBI, which said in October 1991:
Recent years have seen a transformation in Britain's manufacturing base. The recent strength of exports confirms the widespread anecdotal evidence that companies based in Britain are able to compete successfully in some of the toughest technology-intensive markets in the world.
That is the view of those running manufacturing industry. Opposition Members would do well to take their advice rather than continue to posture and try to rewrite history.
There is hardly a Member on the Opposition Benches with business management experience. I remind them, when they talk about the loss of apprenticeships, that the Labour party wrecked Britain's apprenticeship system when they were in power in the 1960s and 1970s. They and their trade union paymasters disapproved strongly of apprenticeships. They still do not appreciate that it is essential in business to make profits and to reinvest them.
Manufacturing investment has increased in each of the last three quarters in this country, and it is vital that that record continue. It will continue, because the Conservative party believes in investment, it believes in profit to ensure that that reinvestment comes about, and it believes, and will continue to believe, in supporting manufacturing industry and companies such as the successful manufacturing companies in the constituency which I am proud to represent.

Mr. Frank Dobson: In view of the speech by the President of the Board of Trade, the first thing that I must do is get some facts on the record.
The first fact is that, for almost 14 years, Britain has had a Tory Government. For 14 years, the Tories have been putting their economic theories into practice. It is they who are responsible for the state of British industry and it is they who have inflicted mass unemployment on the people of Britain. After 14 years in power, there is no one left to blame but themselves. After nearly 14 years of uninterrupted rule, those self-same Tories have clocked up a deplorable economic record.
Despite the benefits of North sea oil and gas, for the last 10 years of Tory rule Britain has had a trade deficit. For the last seven years the trade deficit has never fallen below £10 billion a year, and it has averaged nearly £16 billion. Fourteen years of Tory free-market economics has devastated some sections of British manufacturing industry. This is shown most clearly in what has happened to Britain's trade.
Under the last Labour Government, Britain had a trade surplus in motor vehicles. Last year, despite all the


preposterous claims by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, Britain had a £3·2 billion deficit in motor vehicles alone. In electrical machinery, the Tories turned an inherited surplus into a deficit of £1·4 billion. In furniture, a surplus has been changed into a deficit of £433 million. In telecommunications and sound equipment, the surplus the Tories inherited has become a deficit of £697 million. Our trade in textiles has moved from break-even to a deficit of £1·5 billion.
When we look at the Tories' unemployment record, their performance is still worse. There are more than 4 million people really out of work in Britain. Even the Government's figures now show more than 3 million out of work. The Tories fought the general election of 1979 using a poster that purported to show a dole queue and carried the words "Labour isn't Working". That year, unemployment totalled 1,074,000. Since the 1979 general election, unemployment has never fallen back to the level that the Tories inherited—even for a single day. Now, for the fifth out of 14 years of Tory rule, unemployment is again over 3 million. That means that, in one year in every three, the Tories have thrown 3 million of their fellow citizens on the dole.
But this 3 million total is much worse than before, because this time the Tories have pushed unemployment past the 3 million mark despite the effects of more than 30 successive fiddles, all of which have reduced the official unemployment total. If the Department of Employment statisticians were a football team, they would be banned for bringing their profession into disrepute.
Even using these disreputable figures, the situation is grimmer than ever before. More than 1 million people have been out of work for a year or more. More than 1 million young people are out of work. This time, unemployment is not limited mainly to Scotland, Wales and the north of England; it is everywhere and it is hitting everybody.
In London, unemployment is worse than it has ever been in London's history. Half a million Londoners are out of work; 58 Londoners chase every job vacancy. Women's unemployment is far worse in London than in the rest of Britain. Overall, the rate of unemployment in London is now second only to the rate in the northern region. The west midlands is in third place in this league table of misery, waste and disrepair; and even in the previously prosperous south-east, unemployment is now around the national average.

Mr. Mackinlay: One feature of the debate is that, until my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned the south-east, 10 million who live outside Greater London but within the south-east had not been mentioned. Was not the south-east the cockpit of the last election, as it probably will be of the next? Do not many people in the south-east feel betrayed and deceived by the Conservatives, who said that, if people voted Conservative on Thursday, the recovery would continue on Friday? Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands in the south-east who are unemployed or whose businesses have gone bust want to know which Friday the Prime Minister was referring to?

Mr. Dobson: This is indeed the case. As my hon. Friend, knows, I was recently in Basildon, where one in five men are out of work. I think that fewer of them will vote Tory in future.
For years, the Tories and their friends in the City and on the City pages of the newspapers told the people that making things was old hat, and that manufacturing was a job for the third world. The future, they said, was with the service industries. Large manufacturers were seen as creatures of the past; it was said that the self-employed would lead Britain to prosperity.
To be fair, the Tories practised what they preached, and the banks helped them. Manufacturing industry was run down, and it is still being run down. The trouble is that the service industries are going down with it. If we look at who makes up the jobless now, we find that there are more than 900,000 white collar workers, a third higher than last time the official total topped 3 million. Nor have the self-employed been spared the harsh winds of the free market. Last summer, 275,000 people who were formerly self-employed were on the dole, and the Government have yet to publish the most recent figures.
Much of the blame for all that rests with the Tory attitude to manufacturing. In 1979, there were 7,261,000 people employed in manufacturing in Britain, making things for others to buy and use at home and abroad. These were not old smokestack industries such as the Secretary of State referred to in his speech to the Tories at Harrogate, but industries making motor vehicles, electrical plant, furniture, textiles, and telecommunications and sound equipment. But by last December, that total of 7·2 million had plunged to just 4·3 million, and it is still falling fast. By now, manufacturing jobs lost under the Government may exceed 3 million.
Suddenly, the Prime Minsiter has noticed. He said that he did not agree with the neglect of manufacturing industry and that he used to be in a minority, poor lamb, but now he is in a better position to expound his views. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out, there is no evidence that the Prime Minister ever said anything about it before, still less that he did anything. His must have been the industrial strategy that dared not speak its name.
Whatever the Prime Minister may say now, and whatever views he may expound, his record is worse than that of Mrs. Thatcher. While Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, manufacturing jobs were lost at a rate of 186,000 a year. That was not a record to be sneezed at, but it pales beside the record of the present incumbent. The rot seems to have set in when he became Chancellor. In the last quarter under Nigel Lawson, manufacturing jobs went up. During the period that the Prime Minister has lived in Downing Street, first at No. 11 and now at No. 10, manufacturing jobs have fallen every quarter—at a rate of 252,000 a year since he became Chancellor—and at a rate of 312,000 a year since he became Prime Minister.
Never mind what the Government are saying now about manufacturing industry in the 1980s; let us remember what they said at the time. Nigel Lawson, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that he was at a loss to understand the selective importance attached by Labour to the manufacturing sector. Later, in Washington, he warned that the world should not
be seduced by the wonders of high-tech into overlooking the fact that many of the jobs of the future will be in labour intensive service industries which are not so much low-tech as no-tech".
To be fair to the Government, no one could claim that they fell victim to the high-tech seduction. Far from it; they have let the country become a total pushover for


everybody else's high-tech exports. The Government encouraged banks to invest in service industries and not to give priority to manufacturing, not that the bankers needed much encouragement. When it comes to short-sighted stupidity, it is a toss-up 'whether the British banks or the British Government take first place.
The banks invested tens of billions of pounds in property speculation. The Government encouraged them to invest in Canary Wharf, by giving its Canadian owners £370 million of taxpayers' money. It still went bust, and the banks lost a fortune. The banks then went round their small and medium-sized business customers calling in loans, ending overdraft facilities and refusing money needed for expansion. That was not because small and medium-sized businesses were getting things wrong but because the banks had got things wrong and needed to recoup the money that they had lost in property speculation. That sums up what has been wrong with Britain under the Tories. Incompetent financial institutions have been on the make, leaving no funds for companies making useful products.
Manufactured goods can be sold abroad, but there was no chance of selling abroad many of the products of the service industries that the Tories promoted in the 1980s. There is no recorded case in history of anyone exporting a speculative office block. Even now, after all the Tory rundown, when manufacturing has fallen to less than a quarter of our national production, it still contributes no less than two thirds of our overseas earnings and all that the fashionable service industries can do is make up the remaining third.
The neglect of manufacturing shows that, when we stop making things, it does not just mean that Britain cannot export; it means that we have to import goods for our own use. If there is a boom in the high street and in the shopping centres, much of what is bought will be imported goods that we once made for ourselves. It is a fact of life that, when people stop working, they stop producing. The goods that our people stopped producing, our country started importing.
Of course, British-made goods have to be sold abroad, and the Government have made that more difficult by fouling up the arrangements for export credit guarantees, leaving our exporters at a disadvantage, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said. The Government have resorted to much-publicised overseas visits which have more to do with photo opportunities for Tory Ministers than with sales opportunities for British firms. The Prime Minister seems to have taken on that mantle from his predecessor. The theory was that trade follows the flag. The trouble is that their trade follows our flag.
The Prime Minister went on a much-publicised visit to China and that was really good for exports—Chinese exports. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, Chinese exports to Britain have doubled. It is easy for a country that uses child labour to compete. There is a rumour that the Chinese embassy has asked for one of the Prime Minister's new honours nomination forms, because the Chinese want to nominate our Prime Minister for services to their exports.
The Prime Minister also visited Hong Kong, and from that visit it was easy to judge his commitment to British

exporters. He was supposed to meet our trade representative in Hong Kong, the man who is responsible for trying to export our goods to Hong Kong. The Prime Minister cancelled that appointment, because he had a more pressing one. He wanted to meet the crooked Hong Kong man, Li Ka Shing, to touch him for money for the Tory party. As usual, that Tory Minister put the vested interests of the Tory party before the interests of this country. That is the attitude that has helped to get our economy into its present dreadful state.
The attitude of successive Secretaries of State for Employment has not helped. What a useless lot they have been; but the most recent ones take the prize. They have devoted themselves to fiddling the figures and then perverting the English language to present the figures in a favourable light. Over the past three years, unemployment has risen inexorably, but we would never guess that from the monthly press releases issued by the Secretary of State.
The one for June 1991 was headed:
Michael Howard welcomes slow down in unemployment increase".
The total was then 2·2 million. In August 1991, he declared:
this is further evidence that the worst of the recession is over".
He said that on the ground that
In each of the last 3 months the increase has been well below that of each of the previous 3 months".
That meant that the total had risen to 2·3 million.
In September 1991 the Secretary of State said:
Today's figures confirm that the recession is coming to an end".
The total had hit 2·4 million. After similar statements in intervening months, in December 1991 the then Secretary of State for Employment proclaimed:
The rate at which unemployment is increasing remains on a firmly downward trend".
This Nostradamus of the press release claimed to detect
many encouraging signs that the recession is coming to an end".
That meant that the total had hit 2·5 million.
January saw the promulgation of a job seekers charter. Whatever happened to that? In February, every jobless person was promised an individual back-to-work plan. That would have consumed a lot of paper, because the total then stood at 2·6 million.
After the general election, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was succeeded by the present Secretary of State. She, to be fair, brought to the job a reputation for decency and common sense. But, sad to relate, she succumbed to the temptations of that monthly press release.
Perhaps it is not the fault of Ministers after all. Perhaps they have a rogue word processor which thrives on bent statistics, weasel words and daft predictions. In future, when they produce the monthly unemployment figures, they should not just run the spell-check on the word processor, they should lash it up to a polygraph lie detector because that is the only way that we shall ever have the truth.
In April, the right hon. Lady detected "glimmers of hope" in the figure that then stood at 2·65 million. By June she was reduced to welcoming
a slow down in the rate of increase.
The total then stood at 2·7 million.
In July, "Gypsy Rose Gillian" looked into her crystal ball to discern
encouraging signs in today's unemployment figures.


In August she talked of "signs of improvement". By October, with the figure at 2·76 million, she got round to expressing deep concern
about the personal hardship of unemployed people and their families.
Then came a bit of newspeak in the same press release of which George Orwell would have been proud. She said that the task of her Department was
to provide unemployed people with the skills and job experience necessary to keep them in touch with the changing labour market.
By November, that changing labour market had left 2·9 million people on the dole. Since then it has kept changing, always for the worse, and the total now exceeds 3 million. Apart from issuing misleading press releases, the Secretary of State has done nothing.
The Government are keen on league tables—league tables for schools, hospitals and now for the police forces. League tables, the Tories say, present useful information in a form that is easy to understand and from which it is easy to judge performance. Well, here goes.
Britain is top of the European Community league table for unemployment. Britain has more people out of work than any other EC country. Britain is the only country in the Community with more than 3 million people out of work. Britain has the fastest rising unemployment in Europe. Under the Tories, Britain is top of the table and, unless things change dramatically, it is likely to stay that way.
Britain simply cannot afford that level of unemployment. The Secretary of State has admitted that it costs the taxpayer £9,000 to keep somebody out of work for a year. Our level of unemployment is costing taxpayers £27 billion each year, equal to a tax of £1,225 for every family in the land.
But that is not the end of the story. When people are not working, they are not producing. At the present official level of unemployment, Britain is losing 3 million working days' production every day, 15 million days a week and 780 million working days a year.
We cannot afford to lose production on that scale. It means that our economy is not firing on all cylinders. It means that we are losing more than £50 billion-worth of goods and services, equal to a tax of £2,275 for every family in the land. Having 3 million people out of work is costing every family in the land a total of £3,500 in lost tax and lost production. It is the economics of the madhouse. Its other name is the free market.
The Government have done nothing to end the catastrophic rise in the jobless total. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister keep bleating that all the conditions are in place for an economic revival. That is not true. Even if it were, I pass on to them a warning from my medically learned and hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who pointed out to me that, when someone is in a coma, all the conditions necessary for them to come round are in place —but it does not automatically follow that they will come round.
The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are fond of stating that they have in place the largest ever range of help for the unemployed. That may also be in place, but it certainly is not working. The number of training places available has contracted as the number of jobless have grown. Since 1990, two fifths of employment training places have disappeared. Even the chances of someone

who has been on an ET course getting a job are one in five —exactly the same as someone who has not undergone that training; that is despite the phenomenal expense of employment training. The average cost per trainee, according to a parliamentary answer, is £6,014. At that rate—and I checked this—an individual could undergo a postgraduate course in nuclear physics or be a full-time student at a postgraduate medical research institute.
Youth training places have been cut by one fifth since January 1990, and only half of all YT leavers were in a job six months later. Although YT is compulsory for out-of-work 16 and 17-year-olds, it has proved so unattractive that 111,000 of them are not in training, education or work.
For the past six months, the Secretary of State has recognised that the existing scheme is a shambles and has promised new schemes. She has announced them every month for the last six months—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: New figures—another press release.

Mr. Dobson: Whether from the word processor or the calculator, they have just arrived—and no doubt they have been seasonally adjusted.
The Secretary of State announced those changes every month—[Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dobson: You must recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that masters of mime can amuse all sorts of people.
The Secretary of State has announced new measures every month for the past six months, but they have still not been introduced. Since the right hon. Lady took over, 3·5 million people have tasted unemployment. If Florence Nightingale was the lady with the lamp, the Secretary of State has become the lady with the P45. For all her fine words, she has done nothing to get more people back to work or into top-quality training.
The Prime Minister decided that the Secretary of State for Employment was making such a poor fist of it that Lord Wakeham was wheeled in to sort things out. I have to warn the Secretary of State that if he makes as good a job of that as he did of electricity privatisation, the right hon. Lady should watch it—she may well inherit a shambles as big as the pit closure programme that the President of the Board of Trade inherited from the same Lord Wakeham.
The Government say that they will announce in the Budget new measures to help the unemployed. Given their track record, it is a good bet that any new Tory measures will have less to do with the unemployed than with fiddling the unemployment figures.
There are overwhelming economic reasons for making the forthcoming Budget a Budget for jobs. The Government must put full employment, which the Prime Minister says he supports, at the top of the economic agenda—not just in Britain, but across the whole European Community.
If people are not convinced by the economic arguments of the need for full employment, they should be convinced by the political imperatives. Right across Europe, millions are out of work. Far too many of them are young people. They want jobs. If the respective political parties of the left, centre and centre-right in Europe do not give them jobs, those people will look elsewhere.
Unemployment has always been the principal recruiting sergeant of the violent, racist, anti-semitic parties of the far right. With political instability and the rise of neo-fascism in Italy, with the resurgence of neo-Nazism in Germany, with the neo-falangists reappearing in Spain, with Le Pen in France and with far-right racist groups flexing their muscles here in Britain, it is time for a bold commitment to full employment. That cannot be achieved quickly, and it cannot be achieved in one country; but, with democracy itself at stake, full employment must be the aim, and it must be achieved.
This Tory Government have not the understanding, the energy or the vision to bring about the necessary changes. The plain fact is that the Government have no idea how to get our country out of the mess in which they have landed it. They have not got an economic strategy; they have not got an industrial strategy; they have not got an employment strategy. In fact, they have not got a clue.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This has been a good debate, featuring some remarkable contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Sadly and inevitably, it has been characterised by the now customary running down of British industry and British achievement by Opposition Front Benchers: as always, they have revelled in the existence of any difficulties, while hating to point to any successes. They never tire of talking Britain down. At some points, their stance has provided an interesting contrast with the speeches of some of their own Back Benchers.
Both the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) spoke of the need for a change of culture, a greater awareness of the importance of manufacturing, and the part that education could play in all that. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne drew attention to the importance of the new framework provided by the national curriculum. Let me add to the points that he made, while encouraging the right hon. Member for Halton.
As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, general national vocational qualifications are now available to more than 9,000 young people, and that availability will gradually be spread across the cohort. The Guardian—in the surprised tones so characteristic of that newspaper—has said:
The Government seems to have a success on its hands with GNVQs.
As my hon. Friend will know, GNVQs are equivelant to two A-levels, and are certainly doing their bit to change the culture in our schools.
Following our teacher placement schemes, one third of the 75,000 teachers who have been placed in industry for short periods have been placed in manufacturing, working closely with the Confederation of British Industry and its national manufacturing council. Our work with education business partnerships and Compact now covers 700 schools, 10,000 employers and 140,000 young people—and, of course, the very existence of training and enterprise councils spreads the message about the importance of manufacturing right across our society.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) asked about apprenticeships. Let me tell him that 400 apprenticeships are in existence very close to him, at

County Durham TEC: he may well wish to visit the TEC, and see a good example of successful youth training in action.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was realistic enough to point out that, given the development of new technology, an expansion in the manufacturing base would not necessarily result in a huge increase in the number of jobs, but should increase the skills of the work force. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that 76 per cent. of our work force now have qualifications. Two million more people have relevant vocational qualifications than five years ago, and 2·5 million more have A-levels or qualifications above that level. I hope, due to his interest in these matters, that the hon. Gentleman is giving every possible support to Investors in People.
I was most interested to hear at first hand from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) of the work of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance and of the goodwill message that he had received from the Prime Minister. I am sure that he will not expect me to comment on his Budget representations, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have taken careful note of them. He will also have taken careful note of the customary representation by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), because of his very well placed concern for the excellent product that is made in his constituency and the duties applied thereon.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) will have heard the points made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about the developments in his review of the pit closure programme, including the point that the White Paper is to be published shortly. The hon. Gentleman will know that enhanced area status has already been announced for Barnsley and Doncaster. I was glad to hear that he welcomed the arrival of new jobs in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows that last week I was in his constituency and that I visited the very dynamic training and enterprise council for Barnsley and Doncaster. It is doing excellent work. It has already done a great deal of work in preparation for possible pit closures, should they take place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) rightly pointed out that any successful economy needs a range of employment. It needs manufacturing industries; it needs service industries. My hon. Friend will know that, in common with other countries, the service sector grew during the 1980s. That growth very much mirrors what has happened elsewhere. In the United States, the service sector has risen from 63 per cent. to 69 per cent., and in Germany from 54 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent.
I was most interested to hear the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) speak so warmly in defence of free trade. He clearly has not spoken recently to his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), but no doubt they will sort that out between them at some future stage. That is merely one example of what is writ large on the Opposition Front Bench in terms of different messages from different spokesmen, a point to which I shall turn shortly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the stance on this side is entirely uniform. We always support free trade, whether we are working in GATT, in the Social Affairs Council or elsewhere. A little more


support from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends when we try to achieve level playing fields when working in the Social Affairs Council would be very welcome.
Over the weekend, the Prime Minister asked when the Leader of the Opposition last said a good word about Britain. We on this side are entitled to ask the same question tonight. When did the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Holborn and St. Pancras last say a good word about Britain? The hon. Member for Livingston was not present throughout the debate. Had he been, he would have heard a number of fair-minded comments from his hon. Friends. It seems strange to me that there is little interchange of view or of rhetoric among Opposition Members.
We certainly did not hear the hon. Members for Livingston and for Holborn and St. Pancras tonight say a good word about Britain. During the debate they have not said one word about the outstanding productivity achievements of British workers, nor one word about the record export sales achieved by British industry in overseas markets, or about the high level of investment in manufacturing industry by British business. There was not one word of recognition or encouragement for the men and women in manufacturing industry achieving successes day by day in the most difficult of world economic conditions.
The Front-Bench spokesmen do not wish to acknowledge success—

Mr. Chisholm: The Minister referred to productivity and exports. The reason why productivity may not have been mentioned is that it is easy to improve productivity by throwing thousands of people on to the dole. Productivity has increased, but output has not, purely because of unemployment. Surely the significant export figure is the deficit in manufactured trade. What was the deficit in manufactured goods in 1979, and what was it last year in the depths of a recession? It was £9·9 billion.

Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to muse on the contribution to productivity made by the Labour Government, with their overmanning and the endless succession of days lost through strikes.
Opposition Members do not want to acknowledge success; they want to wallow in imaginary failure. They want to ignore the facts, but the facts are what they will get. First, I shall give them the facts on investment. The United Kingdom has an unrivalled record in attracting investment from overseas. In the year to March 1992 alone, foreign companies launched more than 330 new investment projects in Britain, which created more than 22,000 jobs and safeguarded 30,000 more.
Of course, every time a redundancy is announced, Opposition Members want to raise the matter in the House —but do we ever hear a word from them about the 50,000 jobs created in a year by foreign companies investing in Britain? Never. But we do hear some words from them about foreign investment. Those words are "alien, perverse and undemocratic". Those are the TUC's words. Again and again, I have challenged Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to disown those words, and I am happy to do so again now.

Ms. Diane Abbott: rose—

Mrs. Shephard: Ah, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is going to do it for them.

Ms. Abbott: Like her hon. Friends, the Minister has spoken about the amount of inward investment. Does she not accept that one of the main attractions for Japanese and other investors is the fact that British wages are only 44 per cent. of west German wages? What long-term future is there for British industry as a low-wage assembly point for Japanese industry?

Mrs. Shephard: I wonder how the hon. Lady would describe the events surrounding the moving of jobs from Dijon to Cambuslang, where wages were similar. On-costs for German employers are indeed 61 per cent. higher than they are here, so it is small wonder that we attract inward investment.
I note that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are not willing to disown the words of the TUC—"alien, perverse, and undemocratic". I suppose that they cannot afford to offend their union paymasters. Until they do that—

Mr. Robin Cook: The right hon. Lady has shifted her ground. Three minutes ago, she accused Opposition Members of using those words, but now she attributes them to the TUC. Will she now produce the official TUC document from which she is quoting? Will she tell us from which official document those words were taken? Will she admit that she is quoting one member of the TUC, who is not, and never has been, a member of the Labour party, and who is not eligible to join?

Mrs. Shephard: I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman has noticed, but the whole Labour party has been trying to shift its ground on all those areas of policy. I can indeed answer the hon. Gentleman. I expect that he was present when the words were spoken at the TUC conference in 1991. I am not sure which union sponsors him, but I have no doubt that he was present when the words were spoken.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Lady has made a serious allegation. Will she please name a single member of the Labour party who has used those words, or withdraw her allegation?

Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said—the only words we hear about such investment are "alien, perverse and undemocratic". Let him disown the TUC's words. I note that he has not done so.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Lady has failed to answer the question. Will she name the member of the Labour party to whom she attributes those words, or withdraw the allegations that she has made in the House?

Mrs. Shephard: I have asked the hon. Gentleman to disown the words, and he is not willing to do so.

Mr. Cook: There is no difficulty about that—those words have never been used by any member of the Labour party and they are not words with which I would associate myself. I do not understand what the right hon. Lady finds so entertaining about the matter. She has grotesquely misled the House. Will she withdraw her earlier assertion, or name the member of the Labour party to whom she attributes those words?

Mrs. Shephard: I made it perfectly clear that those words were spoken by a TUC member. I asked Opposition Members to disown them, and the hon. Gentleman has done so.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Lady will now do the House the credit of admitting that she has attempted a smear, which has no substance, and in which she has been caught out.

Mrs. Shephard: My goodness, an accusation of a smear from the hon. Gentleman is a compliment indeed.
Let us consider for a moment that so-called "alien, perverse and undemocratic" foreign investment. In 1991, one third of all inward investment in the European Community came to Britain. More than 35 per cent. of total United States investment in Europe is located in the United Kingdom, and total investment from Japan is more than 40 per cent.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) asked why firms come to this country. It is not because of the weather or because of the Opposition. Firms do not have to come here. They are free to locate anywhere, yet they choose to come here because unit costs are low and under control, because this country's strike record is lower than it has ever been in our history, and because we have an attractive tax structure, with the lowest corporation tax in the developed world. Above all, they come because—apparently unlike the Labour party—they believe in Britain.
We welcome inward investors because they create jobs in Britain: 15 per cent. of all jobs in manufacturing industry are in foreign-owned firms. The jobs are welcome to the people who work for those firms, but the benefits of inward investment are not confined to people directly employed in American, Japanese or European businesses which have come here. In the past three years, inward investors have brought more than 50 per cent. of their equipment in the United Kingdom. All that means more business and more jobs for Britain.
Those jobs have gone to all parts of Britain. Scotland, Wales and the north-east of England have done especially well, and more than half the jobs created by inward investors between 1987 and 1990 went to those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) described very well the effect of such inward investment.

Mr. John Gunnell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall not give way for the moment, as I wish to make progress.
In every country, the share of gross domestic product taken by manufacturing is falling. That is the case in Germany, the United States of America, France and Italy, as well as in Britain, and it reflects changes in methods of production and the organisation of business.
But this should not be allowed to conceal the underlying performance of business. British manufacturing industry has had a decade of success in the 1980s. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Opposition Members and their trade union paymasters directed our affairs, British industry was at the bottom of the international league table for productivity. What a contrast with the 1980s, when manufacturing output rose by 22 per cent., and productivity by almost 60 per cent. Last year alone, despite

adverse world trading conditions, productivity reached record levels. It is now rising at 6 per cent. a year. This is good news for industry, good news for those who work in industry and good news for Britain.
Manufacturing Exports grew by over 50 per cent. in the 1980s. They now stand at their highest level ever. Car exports have more than doubled since 1986. We are a net exporter of chemical goods, and we are a net exporter of pharmaceutical goods, with exports growing by 18 per cent. in 1992. These successes are the result of policies aimed at encouraging enterprise, providing incentives, sweeping away unnecessary regulations and reducing burdens on business.
That is why foreign investment is coming to this country. But there are also other reasons: interest rates are the lowest in Europe; inflation at 1·7 per cent. is the lowest since 1967; unit wage costs are growing more slowly than in Japan and more slowly than in Germany; and labour costs in manufacturing are 61 per cent. of those in Germany. These are the necessary conditions for economic growth at any time and in any country. If the Opposition have not understood that, they will never understand anything.
But, of course, unemployment is difficult for anyone who faces it, and we have got to have effective help to offer to unemployed people. That is why we are creating 1·5 million opportunities for unemployed people—a wider range than has ever been provided before. But we never hear a word of praise for the Employment Service. Nearly 50,000 dedicated staff, with a budget of over £1 billion, work, day in, day out, to help people to find new jobs. Last year, they placed over 1·5 million people in jobs—6,000 each and every working day. Do we ever hear a word of praise for the training and enterprise councils—82 local groups of business people, working to provide the training that individuals and industry need?
Instead of recognising those achievements, Opposition Members prefer to preach a message of despair to unemployed people. Most people leave unemployment very quickly—over half within three months, and two thirds within six months. That is the message we should be getting across to people who have lost their jobs—a clear message that there are jobs out there, that training and enterprise councils and jobcentres are there to help people to get back to work.
It would be wonderful if, just for once, the Opposition helped to get that message across. Instead, they add to the despair of people who have lost their jobs by encouraging them to believe they will never work again. The extraordinary exaggerations and assertions of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras were over the top, even for him. That is, of course, typical of the crocodile tears from the Opposition Benches. Instead of giving hope to people who have lost their jobs, they spread despair.
Fortunately, no one takes any notice of them. They are all preaching different messages. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to put a tax on jobs; the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) claims to be concerned for the small business man; but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has never really repudiated his pre-election tax plans, and still has not abolished the trade union block vote.
But they all have one thing in common: the policies on which they do agree would destroy jobs. They denigrate business. They are hostile to employers. The hon. Member


for Holborn and St. Pancras has now added to his description of employers as "scum" his description of bankers as short-sighted, stupid and on the make. Opposition Members tell foreign business men—people coming here to invest their wealth in factories—that they are alien. What impact does that have on business confidence? What impact does it have in the board rooms of companies in America, Japan and Hong Kong?
The Opposition would introduce a national minimum wage. How many jobs would that destroy? They would sign up to the social charter. How many jobs would that destroy? They would put a training levy on employers. How many jobs would that destroy? Their latest idea is to subsidise jobs by taxing the utilities. What a message. Every time one made a success of one's own enterprise, one would be taxed.

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:-

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 302.

Division No. 176]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Alton, David
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)



Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Boyce, Jimmy
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyes, Roland
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken



Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Enright, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cann, Jamie
Fraser, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fyfe, Maria


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galbraith, Sam


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George



Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Garrett, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
George, Bruce





Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Mildred
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Graham, Thomas
Morgan, Rhodri


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris. Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hain, Peter

Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pickthall, Colin


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Pope, Greg


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Alan


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Spellar, John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCartney, Ian
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum
Straw, Jack


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McLeish, Henry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McMaster, Gordon
Tipping, Paddy


McNamara, Kevin
Trimble, David


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max


Tyler, Paul


Mahon, Alice
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wareing, Robert N


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Watson, Mike


Martlew, Eric
Welsh, Andrew


Maxton, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Meale, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)






Wilson, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Winnick, David



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.


Wright, Dr Tony



NOES


Adley, Robert
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Ancram, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Faber, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fabricant, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, Dudley


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forman, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Booth, Hartley
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Fry, Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gale, Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garnier, Edward


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorst, John


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Butcher, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David.
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hendry, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cran, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Horam, John


Davies, Ouentin (Stamford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)





Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trend, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Trotter, Neville




Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Willetts, David


Pawsey, James
Wilshire, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wolfson, Mark



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wood, Timothy






Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Lightbown and



Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 259.

Division No. 177]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James



Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Eggar, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Elletson, Harold


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faber, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fabricant, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Booth, Hartley
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, Dudley


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Andrew
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fry, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gallie, Phil


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gardiner, Sir George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)



Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hanley, Jeremy


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Couchman, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hendry, Charles





Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth




Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Redwood, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David



MacKay, Andrew
Sykes, John


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mawhinney, Or Brian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Trend, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walden, George


Moate, Sir Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ward, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Neubert, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Whittingdale, John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Young, Sir George(Action)
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Enright, Derek


Alton, David
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Fatchett, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Faulds, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Austin-Walker, John
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George



Battle, John
Fraser, John


Bayley, Hugh
Fyfe, Maria


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Galbraith, Sam


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Gapes, Mike


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John


Benton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyce, Jimmy
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Hall, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heppell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoey, Kate


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld. H)


Cox, Tom
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Jowell, Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Denham, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lewis, Terry





Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Redmond, Martin


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


McMaster, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michael, Alun
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Trimble, David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tyler, Paul


Mudie, George
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Watson, Mike


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Welsh, Andrew


O'Hara, Edward
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, William
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Audrey


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Eric Illsley and



Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Radice, Giles

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance of the manufacturing base to the wealth creation process in this country; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on setting in place the basic framework for economic recovery—low inflation, low interest rates, good industrial relations and a low tax regime—supported by measures in the Autumn Statement; applauds Her Majesty's Government on its success in attracting more inward investment than any of the United Kingdom's Community partners; acknowledges the widely reported signs of recovery in business confidence; recognises the unparalleled opportunities to help individuals to get back to work; and looks forward with confidence to the prospect of a return to sustained growth.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your


attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I were completing a conversation in the No Lobby and, as we were about to come out, the tellers had disappeared. While I would not want to question the vote, may I ask you to put it on the record that we were present and wished to vote?

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members should be much more responsible than to spend their time gossiping in the Lobbies.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: May, by leave of the House, put together motions Nos. 2 to 20? [HON. MEMBERS: "Object."] In that case, let us take it stage by stage.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 13.

Division No. 178]
[10.26 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Day, Stephen


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alton, David
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Ancram, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fabricant, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Howart, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)



Cran, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael





Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shersby, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knapman, Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knox, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sproat, Iain


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Steen, Anthony


Legg, Barry
Stephen, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stern, Michael


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lightbown, David
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sykes, John


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Thomason, Roy


MacKay, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thurnham, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Trend, Michael


Mans, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Marlow, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walden, George


Merchant, Piers
Wallace, James


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ward, John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Moate, Sir Roger
Waterson, Nigel


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Willetts, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilshire, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


>Pickles, Eric
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Cann, Jamie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Cohen, Harry
Simpson, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Wise, Audrey


Flynn, Paul



Godman, Dr Norman A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Mahon, Alice
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.— [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 15.

Division No. 179]
[10.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alton, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ancram, Michael
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Arbuthnot, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.






Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hawksley, Warren



Bright, Graham
Heald, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hendry, Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Congdon, David
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Day, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Devlin, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dorrell, Stephen
Legg, Barry


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dover, Den
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lightbown, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lord, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew


Elletson, Harold
Maclean, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Faber, David
Malone, Gerald


Fabricant, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Merchant, Piers


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Moate, Sir Roger


Freeman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


French, Douglas
Neubert, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholls, Patrick





Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, John
Trend, Michael


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waterson, Nigel


Sackville, Tom
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilshire, David


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stephen, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary



Sykes, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


NOES


Barnes, Harry
Salmond, Alex


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Skinner, Dennis


Cann, Jamie
Spearing, Nigel


Cohen, Harry
Welsh, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wise, Audrey


Davidson, Ian



Flynn, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Mahon, Alice
Mr. Terry Lewis.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): We now come to motion No. 4.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Not moved, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Do I take it that the remaining motions, up to and including No. 21, are not moved?

Mr. MacKay: Not moved, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Public Lending Right

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I beg to move,
That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1933, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
As the House will know, the public lending right has always been broadly supported by hon. Members of all parties. It was introduced—following many years of campaigning by authors for some financial reward in recognition of the use made of their books by public libraries—by the Public Lending Right Act 1979, which had all-party support. The Act conferred on authors a new right of payment in respect of the loan of their books to the public, in accordance with a scheme to be designed.
The actual scheme, which was approved by Parliament in 1981, provides for authors who have registered their books under the Act to receive payments in proportion to the number of times their books are lent from public libraries. The payments to authors and the costs of administration are both met from the single PLR central fund, which currently stands at £4.75 million, having last been increased in 1991 from £3·5 million.
Under the Public Lending Right Act 1979, an increase in the fund requires an order in the form of a statutory instrument to be laid before the House of Commons and approved by resolution of the House before the start of the financial year in which it is to take place. The order before the House authorises an increase in the fund of more than 5 per cent., from £4.75 million in this financial year to £5 million from the financial year 1993–94.
The proposed increase recognises the costs of a new computer and seeks to maintain the real level of the rate per loan paid to authors. The rate per loan is calculated each year by the registrar. The aggregate sum available to authors is divided by an estimated national aggregate of loans. Both this aggregate and the estimated total loans for each book are derived by extrapolating the figures from a rotating sample of 30 libraries in the United Kingdom. The order in respect of this year's rate per loan was laid before Parliament in December, and increased the rate from 1.81p to 1·86p.
This sum may seem small, and most payments to authors are indeed modest. But it was never intended that PLR payments to authors should provide a main source of income. Nevertheless, 18,000 authors will receive a payment this year. Ninety-seven authors will qualify for the maximum payment of £6,000. However, the larger part of the fund continues to go to less well known and up-and-coming authors. We know from the number of letters sent to the registrar at this time of year when the payments are made that these payments are widely welcomed by authors.
The scheme is complex to administer, but it is efficiently managed by the registrar, Dr. Parker, and his valiant staff at Stockton-on-Tees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage visited the PLR at Stockton-on-Tees on 11 February. I know how impressed he was by the dedication and professionalism of the staff and by the remarkable achievements.
Actual payments to authors this year account for 83 per cent. of the total PLR expenditure. As I mentioned earlier, some new expenditure on information technology is now

needed. The operation is totally dependent on cornputerisation, and the new system will replace the original computer, installed in 1982. It will bring the benefits of additional storage capacity for issues data which are being received from a growing number of sample libraries. It will improve the registrar's ability to establish direct computer links with local authority systems, giving access for their staff to the PLR computer database through an office network providing faster and more sophisticated on-line search facilities.
This year's recent payment of just under £4 million to authors marks the 10th anniversary of the scheme's first payment. Over the 10-year period, the payments amount to almost £30 million. These payments are not an end in their own right. They are designed to ensure that authors receive recompense for the free provision of their books to the public by libraries. That free public library provision is crucial in fostering a literate, informed public, and with this my Department's overall aim of making more widely accessible the rich and varied cultural heritage of this nation can be achieved. Public libraries lend well over half a billion books a year—10 for every man, woman arid child in the United Kingdom.
The public lending right is a well established part of that crucial system, and I commend the order to the House.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As the Minister made clear, the public lending right principle is supported in all parts of the House. The notion that an author should be rewarded for the frequency with which his or her books are borrowed is sensible. We welcome this modest increase in expenditure from £4.75 million to £5 million. We also welcome the improvements in efficiency that have occurred since the new computer system was installed. We trust that it will reduce the proportion of expenditure that is spent on administration and increase the amounts that go to authors. All hon. Members will, I believe, support that aim.
This small but positive increase in the public lending right cannot be allowed to obscure the negative consequences of the Government's policies towards public libraries over the past 14 years. The Minister would not expect me to pass over that issue in such a debate. The House has little opportunity to discuss libraries and it is only right and proper that the Minister should be made aware of the strength of public feeling on the issue.
I shall quote from The Guardian on 3 March—

Sir Roger Moate: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, in a moment.
The quotation is from Councillor John Lock, of Newham council in London. He describes the dilemma in which many councils now find themselves:
Councils with appalling financial problems can only balance their budgets by making cuts. Under the new system of local government finance, there is no other option.
The severity of the impact comes about where budgets are reduced year after year. In some cases, the damage now exposed is the result of eight years of cutting.
Nobody defends library cuts. Nobody, for that matter, defends cuts in the arts, museums, sports, music services, theatre, youth services…the list goes on, to the extent that no area is exempt from attempts to find "savings". It is far from just libraries.


But cuts happen because local councils are trying to operate an impossible system which demands accountability to voters on one hand and Government on the other. And it is the central state which wins hands down.
Even Conservative-controlled boroughs have begun to experience the effects of Whitehall's grip on their budgets. This is presumably why John Major has begun to make cooing noises about a more peaceful relationship with local councils. However, soft soap won't save a single library book until government undoes the system of local government finance it has painstakingly constructed.
Local people want their councils to be the protectors and nurterers of cultural services they have been for a century or more, with a far better record than central government. But we now work under a regime which enforces an emphasis on vicious pruning. Any gardener could tell Mr. Major the only thing his methods are going to produce is a cultural desert. What we need is re-investment and the ability to respond to the demands of our voters.
[Interruption.] If the hon. Member who is speaking from a sedentary position had been here from the beginning of the debate, he would have heard who wrote the letter. It was a local councillor who has to make the decisions that all our councillors have to make when they try to find out how to make the best deal they can for the people whom they represent, in the face of the cuts imposed on them by the Government.

Sir Roger Moate: The debate is about public lending right, not library budgets, so I am not sure why the hon. Lady is holding forth about libraries. Is she perhaps assuming that the public lending right moneys in some way detract from the sum available for libraries? When the legislation was introduced, we were given categorical assurances from spokesmen on both sides of the House that public lending right funding would in no way take funds away from the library system.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot see the correlation between the two subjects. If he looked at the draft statutory instrument he would see that the heading was "Libraries". If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the link, I am sorry but I cannot explain it more positively than that.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: No, I should like to develop what I have to say for a moment, but I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Snape: But not now.

Mrs. Clwyd: We face a systematic rundown of a vital public service—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am afraid that that subject is way off beam. The debate is about the order.

Mrs. Clwyd: I listen to what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would point out again that the order is headed, "Libraries".

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The order is entitled "Public Lending Right", which is not the same thing as libraries.

Mrs. Clwyd: I shall not argue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course I hear what you say.
The situation in public libraries is now so grave that the public lending right may well be seriously affected. Many local authorities are unable to offer the comprehensive and efficient library service that they are obliged to offer, under the public library—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry but that is definitely out of order. The hon. Lady must relate her remarks to the specific contents of the order.

Mrs. Clwyd: The public lending right is obviously related to the books in libraries. To cater properly for the needs of communities, the books lent by them need to be available six days a week, both in the mornings and evenings. The decline in the number of libraries that open for 60 hours each week has been dramatic.
In 1974–75, 229 libraries were open for 60 hours a week.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I have already explained to the hon. Lady that the line that she is taking is out of order. I must ask her to discontinue that aspect of her speech.

Mrs. Clwyd: I find it difficult to understand your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall attempt to proceed with my argument. Clearly, the public lending right is closely related to the number of books lent from libraries, so I cannot see how I can talk about that right without referring to libraries.
During the past 13 years, book funds have failed to keep pace with inflation, while the number of titles has risen substantially. That has also occurred at a time when libraries are increasingly expected to stock non-print materials, such as cassettes, compact discs, videos and computer data bases.
Between 1980–81 and 1990–91, the real purchasing power of public library book funds declined by 16.5 per cent., compared to the bookseller's average price index. Obviously, that has considerable impact on the public lending right.
Opposition Members are also very concerned about the implications of compulsory competitive tendering for the public lending right and for libraries.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but this is intolerable. The hon. Lady must relate her speech to the order that we are considering, and as I understand it that relates to the sum of money paid out from a central fund —it has nothing to do with local authorities. The hon. Lady must have regard to whether she thinks that the extra sum that is being made available is adequate. That would be in order, but a general discussion of library provision is not.

Mrs. Clwyd: May I respectfully point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not all libraries are run by local authorities.
Soon after being appointed, the Secretary of State asserted:
Public libraries should be open, as far as possible"—
I assume that he also meant other libraries that are not run by local authorities—
where and when the community wants them.
Does not the Minister agree that these sentiments, laudible though they may be, are fanciful and will remain so while the Government fail to provide libraries and local authorities with proper funding? As in so many other areas of policy—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does not the hon. Lady understand the purport of what I have said to her? This is out of order, and I cannot allow it to continue.

Mrs. Clwyd: In that case, I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that any further cuts in such services will be made in the face of united opposition from the Opposition and from millions of people up and down the country.

Mr. Paul Channon: It is a very long time since I spoke about the public lending right. Indeed, I believe that my last speech on the subject was made in 1982, since when there have been very few debates about it. I was the Minister who introduced the order that finally led to the public lending right's coming into force. I do not claim much credit for that, as the work had all been done by my predecessors. Nevertheless, the purpose was a useful one. We had no opposition, although I occasionally suspected that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) was less keen on the proposal than were some others. However, I may be totally unjustified in saying so. My hon. Friend will be able, in due course, to explain his position.
The public lending right was bipartisan and, despite the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the principle remains bipartisan—tripartisan, in view of the magnificent attendance of Liberals. A high proportion of them are present and I congratulate them. This development represents a great step forward. However, the legislation, which was introduced by a Labour Government, was not the greatest piece of drafting known to man. Indeed, it was rushed through Parliament almost in the last 24 hours before the 1979 general election.

Mr. Snape: There were a few things on our minds.

Mr. Channon: Indeed, there were one or two things on the minds of people in the Labour and Conservative parties as the legislation was going through.
However, the Conservative Government of the day managed to use what was a very defective Act to get the vehicle on the road. I am delighted that it has stood the test of time and that its few critics have at least remained silent. Whether they are still critics I am not sure. The system has worked and authors have benefited.
I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. I want, first, to take up a point that my hon. Friend made in his introduction. My recollection is that the first samples were taken from about 16 libraries. We have heard that the number is now 30. That is very good. The greater the number of public libraries sampled, the more likely it is that we shall get a representative list. In this regard, is there rotation? There used to be, to the extent of one quarter annually, in order that the sample might be brought up to date. We should be able to assume that in Newcastle or Bromley, or wherever, the sample is wide enough to ensure that authors get a fair deal.
My next question—here I am glad that some of my hon. Friends are not present—concerns European residents in the United Kingdom. Do such people who are authors receive the benefits of public lending rights? If so, are there now reciprocal rights for British residents in the rest of the Communities? That is a matter on which we worked very hard. I believe that, very shortly after I left the Department, the system came into force between the

United Kingdom and what was then West Germany. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say a word or two about that matter. I hope that I am not asking too many technical questions. If necessary, my hon. Friend can write to me. Do British authors who live elsewhere in the European Communities receive the same benefits as those who live in the United Kingdom?
I read with some surprise something about the aims of the registrar. I think that it is in my right hon. Friend's excellent booklet describing the annual report of the Department of National Heritage, which itself deserves to qualify for public lending right. One of the aims of these extra funds is to harmonise public lending right schemes throughout the European Communities. I cannot see why that should be done. Surely this falls squarely within the definition of subsidiarity, which the House debated at some length last night and will no doubt debate at even greater length on Thursday. If there is to be such harmonisation, perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us about the proposal, why we need harmonisation and what sort it will be. It may be a good thing, but I have my doubts.
Another question that was debated at the time of the introduction of the public lending right related to children's books, because many authors of those books felt that the qualifying number of pages was so high that their books would not always be eligible for PLR. Has that problem been resolved? Are the editors of reference books eligible for PLR? It would be interesting to know the answer. I read somewhere that the Department or the registrar aimed to do more about such books. Do illustrators and editors in general qualify for PLR? The scheme has now been running for about 11 years, and those questions should be reconsidered, if they have not been recently, to ensure that fairness is achieved.
I understand that a new computer has been installed and that, to some extent, it has reduced the proportion of money going to the authors. May we assume that that is a temporary arrangement and that the high proportion of money that had gone to authors will, once again, be paid to them? As part of the authors charter, perhaps my hon. Friend can try to get that proportion up to 90 per cent. of the total sum. It has reached the high 80s, but it has never struck 90 per cent. In the next few years, one of the aims of the scheme might be to ensure that the proportion paid to authors increases still more.
I welcome the increase in PLR. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on increasing it. I hope that that will benefit many authors. It would be interesting to learn from the Under-Secretary—I do not think that it is private information—which authors get the main benefits from the system. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), with his usual omniscience and his new contacts with the Treasury, will be able to tell us who they are. I shall listen to him with interest.
I congratulate the Government on increasing the PLR in a difficult public expenditure climate. I hope that the scheme will continue to do the good work that it has done for more than a decade.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am sorry that I feel compelled to enter a gently discordant note into the debate.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): Gentle.

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I assure my right hon. Friend that it is very gentle.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) is in the Chamber and he will remember the ferocious debates that we had in the House back in the 1970s when, if I recall correctly, the Public Lending Right Bill was almost the only Government Bill that was defeated by Opposition Back Benchers. Perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify my memory on that.
I object to the principle of the PLR not because I wish to do hard-working authors out of money—I would be eligible for PLR, but I have declined to register on principle.

Mr. Snape: How many books has the hon. Gentleman sold?

Mr. Sproat: One of my books has been selling for 10 years, with 10,000 copies sold a year.

Mr. Snape: Has the hon. Gentleman written and sold a book on how to pick a winnable constituency?

Mr. Sproat: I am glad to say that, after much trying, I did manage to do so.
Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell me how many civil servants, including part-time ones, are involved in the scheme? I know that he said that 16 full-time civil servants were involved, but are any others? My hon. Friend proposes to give £5 million to the scheme, and a high percentage of that goes on administration. Does that sum include expenditure on advisory committees, expenses for members of those committees, of working groups and so on?
In the seventh year, to February 1990, the administrative costs involved in giving moneys to authors stood at 14 per cent. It is a pretty high percentage, and if a charity spent 14 per cent. of what it earned on its own administration, we should say that it was a little bit too much. The following year, 1991, it was 17 per cent. of the money disbursed, and last year it was 26 per cent. It seems to me that, if one sets up a quango and it spends 26 per cent. of the money disbursed on its own administration, that is a pretty high percentage.
I should make it clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I do not object to this right from any reasons of philistinism. I spend a great deal of money on books, have a fairly substantial library of my own and use my local public library, but I do not think that this is the best way to encourage authors. If one has £5 million to give, I am amazed that Opposition Members cannot think of a better way to spend it. If one decides to give away £5 million to encourage the arts, I do not think that it is a very sensible way to give it to people like my noble Friend Lord Archer, who is a very rich man already, and who gets £6,000 a year out of the pockets of taxpayers who are very much poorer than he is.
This quango managed to spend 26 per cent. of its money on itself and its equipment, and on giving money to people like Lord Archer, Barbara Cartland or Dick Francis, a wonderful author. I am very happy that he has made a lot of money, but he gets plenty of money out of the royalties that he gets on sales.
Not only that, but it seems to me that, when public lending right was originally set up, hon. Members did not

fully understand some of the economics of the publishing company. When a sale is made to a library, the author gets a royalty on that already. There are many books that would not be published at all were it not for the economics of selling to libraries. So authors already get something out of public libraries.
This quango is spending 26 per cent. of money out of the pockets of the taxpayers on itself and its equipment, and it not only gives it to the Jeffrey Archers of this world, but 70 per cent. of authors get less than £100. I ask the House: if we want to encourage literature, is the best way to set up a quango with 16 full-time civil servants, and no doubt part-time civil servants, and all the rest of it, to give 70 per cent. of authors sums of less than £100? That does not seem to me a sensible way to spend the taxpayers' money.
Although I should very much like to see literature encouraged in this country, in a way the House has been taken in. We like to support the arts and literature, but saying that should not mean that we support any scheme that comes along; supporting rich authors who do not need it, while poor authors are getting less than £100 a year. It does not seem to me to be worth it.
Although this debate is not an occasion for a radical root-and-branch examination of public lending right, it seems to me to be based on a fallacious principle. I hope that Ministers will undertake to look again at the scheme and see whether £5 million of public lending right is the best way to encourage more writers in this country.

Sir Roger Moate: The situation is even worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) has just suggested. Of 16,800 authors who received payment, 9,260 received less than £49. That puts a slightly different complexion on the rather glossy presentation we received from my hon. Friend the Minister or from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I am so glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich reminded the House of the battles that were fought over the establishment of the so-called principle of the public lending right. I warmly welcome tonight's debate, the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the scheme, which gives us an opportunity to look again at this public lending right and at the expenditure of public money on a scheme that is based on a fallacy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich was right. I, too, have no objection to the Government or to other patrons dispensing funds to help needy authors; if that is the best use to which the £5 million can be put, so be it. I do object, however, to money being distributed under this scheme to those who do not need it and to giving tiny sums to the many who do need it. I also object to the continued existence of this quango after 10 years—at a time when we are supposed to be trying to eliminate such things. It seems to have become "a good thing", as if that were engraved on tablets of stone. It is not a good thing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) thought that the system had been set up with little opposition. It is worth recalling, then, that throughout the 1970s there were many attempts to put it on the statute book. In 1976 there was the first serious attempt, by the then Labour Government, to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich, Michael English, a former Labour Member, and I defeated the Bill—


probably the only recorded occasion when Back Benchers have defeated Government legislation. Alas, just before the 1979 election, the measure returned to the House and, with co-operation between Government and Opposition Front Benchers, it became law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and I were assailed by many authors, who wrote to us in not very literary language, I am afraid to say. I was also attacked —verbally, not physically—by Ministers, who asked me why I had let the Bill go through, even though 1 had done everything I could to stop it. There was a widespread feeling that the Bill was not as good an idea as had been supposed.
The whole principle behind this expenditure of public money is wrong. The Minister has said that authors should be recompensed for the loan of their books from libraries. He also mentioned that there are 500 million such lendings a year. The point is, of course, that authors have benefited from the sale of their books to the public libraries. Without their purchasing them, many of these books would never have been published in the first place. At the time in question, the public library system disagreed with the argument that public lending was doing down the authors. The reverse is the truth: it is that system which has sustained authorship and helped and encouraged it
I would not mind these funds being disbursed to authors in some other way, but they have no right to the money on the grounds that the public libraries deprive them of their rightful entitlements. There are many other examples of people creating things, selling them and then not getting paid for them again every time others look at or use them. Artists sell their paintings to galleries; they do not get paid every time someone looks at them thereafter.
The European directive—the idea is apparently spreading across the continent; perhaps its inhabitants deserve it—refers to a rental and lending right. Thai is an interesting idea. Manufacturers make a product; profit is then made from it; the product is then rented out time and again. The creator of the product does not get paid every time it is used subsequently by someone else.
This false premise has a romantic history, going back to A. P. Herbert. People latched on to it, but that does not mean that it was right. Many of us strongly objected to the forceful arguments that poor authors were being deprived of their rights by the library system.
In addition, an extraordinary quango structure was to be created—a public lending right institution, which would take samples from all over the country and distribute very small sums of money to thousands of authors. For all those reasons, we found the concept seriously flawed and fought it hard. Three of us argued for about 26 hours in Committee, while nobody else said a word.
Nobody will speak at length tonight—we do not have the time—but I still believe we have a wrong principle and that it is the wrong way to distribute money, as a form of patronage, to help authorship. I regret that the fund has grown to £5 million. I shall not oppose the instrument tonight. I simply place on record my continuing dislike of the way in which the public purse is being used to support such a public lending right scheme.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I shall be brief, because we are anxious to get home to our cocoa and bedside reading, our library books.
I must at the outset declare an interest. I am a recipient of public lending right and I have come to the House tonight to say thank you to hon. Members who were here in 1979, when the legislation was passed. I particularly salute my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for the leadership that he showed then and has shown since. I say thank you also to the registrar and his team in Stockton-on-Tees. Mr. John Sumsion, the original registrar, did a wonderful job. He is the only man I know who led a quango in a successful way, the head of a lean, mean team which delivered the goods.
I say thank you to the Government for sustaining support for what is an excellent scheme. Most of all, I say thank you—[Interruption.] I anticipate the question that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wants to ask. The list of my books is long and, as the Library is still open, he can go and check for himself.

Mr. Snape: While the hon. Gentleman is listing the people he wishes to thank, he may care to head the list with the name of Mr. Michael Foot, who assured the Labour Whips Office in 1979 that the measure that he was about to introduce would be enormously popular. Alas, not only did it not win us the election, but I learn to my sorrow that it put money into the hon. Gentleman's pocket.

Mr. Brandreth: We authors should salute fellow authors, including Mr. Michael Foot, an author arid historian of note—and still wearing the same donkey jacket, as befits a distinguished author.
If the reading of books is the mark of a civilised society, we can draw comfort from the latest issue of "Cultural Trends," which suggests that book reading is on the increase and that more books are being borrowed from libraries. Indeed, whereas in 1977, 54 per cent. of the population gave the reading of books as one of their favourite pastimes, the figure is now 62 per cent. Consumer spending on books doubled in the last six years, and people are borrowing more books, by the million. Thanks to the public lending right and the registrar, 563 million loans took place in 1992, the 10th year of the scheme.
Given the doom and gloom that is paraded about our society—about the moral and cultural decline and the vacuum in which we live—it is interesting to note the sort of books that people borrow—[Interruption.]—from libraries registered in public lending right. The work of the registrar shows us the authors and books that are borrowed.

Mr. Channon: Who came top of the poll?

Mr. Brandreth: At the top are many favourites, including Virginia Andrews, Agatha Christie, Catherine Cookson, Len Deighton, Dick Francis, Jack Higgins, Victoria Holt, Stephen King, Ed McBain, Ruth Rendell, Wilbur Smith and Danielle Steel, all with loans of over 1 million. Sadly, my noble Friend Lord Archer is not among those with overt million. He is in the over 500,000 list—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East scoffs. Whenever we in this country come across a successful person, we scoff. We love to take successful people and instead of, as people do in other countries, putting them on a pedestal and saying "Well done," we chip away at the statue. We mock the successful people who bring millions, if not billions, of pounds to this


country. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, they are coming to life now, because they are at home when it comes to mocking success.
What is interesting is that the work of the registrar reveals to us not only what contemporary writers are receiving public lending rights, but what classic books are being read by people nowadays.

Sir Roger Moate: Far from attacking successful authors, we are rewarding them with £6,000 each. Is not that munificence? Do they also say thank you to the public for this largesse?

Mr. Brandreth: Indeed we do, although I am not one of the 97 out of 16,000 authors who receive the public lending right. The principle is that we should reward authorship.
The classic authors, those who are most borrowed—up to half a million borrowings a year—are Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Tolkein, Anthony Trollope—

Mr. Snape: Order. They cannot benefit from public lending right.

Mr. Brandreth: This is work produced by the public lending rights office in Stockton-on-Tees and taken from the annual report, and it is part of the funding that goes to the administration which produces this useful information. I did not think that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was in the Chair.
In the second division, over 100,000, the list ranges from Charlotte Bronte to George Orwell—a socialist, but none the less he is here. This is an open opportunity scheme. Even William Shakespeare is being borrowed.

Mr. Robert Spink: May I remind my hon. Friend that his cocoa is getting cold?

Mr. Brandreth: My hon. Friend is quite right, and my children may well be up.
All that I want to say is that the English literary heritage is the glory of our civilisation. It is quite right that we should recognise the contribution that authors make to our cultural and literary life. We are right to reward the living ones with public lending rights. They play a very important part in our civilised life. Let us acknowledge with gratitude something wholly good that is emanating from the House tonight.

Mr. Tim Devlin: May I briefly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) in his contention that this money should not be paid? I very much welcome tonight's order, not least because it will keep 16 of my constituents in work for another several years. I believe that, if an author sells a book to a public library which is then lent out, he is forgoing sales and therefore revenue which he would get from sales all over the country. In the light of that, it seems only right that some payment should be made and some record kept of which books are the most borrowed from our libraries.
I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for their congratulations to my constituents. We have an excellent leader in

Dr. Parker, the present registrar for public lending right, as we had under his illustrious predecessor, John Sumsion, whom I knew very well.
I am pleased to see that, on the 10th anniversary, which unfortunately I was unable to attend, but which the Secretary of State did attend, in my constituency, the top-selling author, and thus the top-rewarded author, was a north-eastern one—Catherine Cookson—who I believe has led the polls for several years in the past.
The 16 people in Stockton-on-Tees work extremely hard. They have recently had a wonderful new computer, which should bring down their administration costs quite sharply, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat). Therefore, he need not have too many worries about the percentage currently being taken in administration costs. It is a hard-working, efficient team, which has been given plaudits by people who know of the work that it does. I wish it every success in the future.

Mr. Key: It is appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) rounded off this important debate. I know what interest he takes in the work of his constituents, who perform a service to all of us who love books, whether we write them, read them, borrow them or buy them. I am grateful to him for his interest and support, as I know his constituents are.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is always a very hard act to follow. We are all grateful to him for enlivening the debate and giving that right sense of joy which should come from anyone who loves books. Books are about so much more than what is inside them. I recall a former Archbishop of Canterbury who insisted that, before he read a book, he always smelled it to check that it would be all right, so it takes all sorts.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who opened the debate, addressed serious issues. I will seek to demonstrate that, far from the public lending right being gravely affected, as she argued, it is flourishing and will continue to expand. The profession of librarian is an honourable one. It is also a modern and up-to-date profession which is responding to the changing demands and expectations of those who use libraries.
It is not the case that a library could be regarded as successful, irrespective of what it does, if only it were open six days a week, morning and afternoon, for 60 hours. I have no power to intervene in the day-to-day management of the public library service. Library authorities are best placed to decide on service provision, including opening hours and library closures, taking into account local needs and resources.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to ensure that library authorities in England meet their duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service. He has no powers to interfere in the day-to-day management of the service. The hon. Lady was tempting us to stray down the path of a local government finance debate which I would have been glad to hold, considering the happy time I had in the Department of the Environment, but it would not be appropriate. I must not forget that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester's cocoa is getting steadily colder.
At this time of year, we would expect competing bids in local authorities. The example most widely quoted has


been Manchester. I am delighted to hear that the libraries and theatres department has been required to make savings which mean that there will be no library closures, and that the department's savings will be less than those for some other departments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is to be congratulated on steering the legislation through some years ago, and on being the first Minister, I think, responsible for the implementation of the principle. When he was responsible, I know that he went to Stockton to ensure that the system was up and running.
My right hon. Friend asked important questions which I shall seek to answer concisely. Of the 30 library authorities—not libraries, incidentally; there will be libraries within the authorities—in the PLR sample, four this year supplied loans data from several branches. That enabled us to increase the sample size from last year's figure of 10.6 million to 16.1 million books. From the 16.1 million loans sampled, our computer estimates individual book issues to equal the total loans from United Kingdom public libraries. To recognise the fact that sampling strength varies between regions, the calculation is done in two stages; first, the computer takes the loans recorded in each region to arrive at a regional estimate, and then adds the regional totals to arrive at the national estimate.
My right hon. Friend asked whether community residents could receive money. The answer is yes. He asked about children's books; there is no qualifying minimum number of pages any more. Among the illustrious titles mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester, who will now be thinking about heating up his cocoa, we find not only Agatha Christie and Ruth Rendell but Enid Blyton, who continues to be in the category of estimated loans of more than 1 million.
On reference books, a sub-committee of the Public Lending Right Advisory Committee is concluding its deliberations. I reassure my right hon. Friend that illustrators qualify, as do editors. Therefore, there has been progress since he was responsible for these matters.
The installation of the computer has led to a reduction in the funding that is available for distribution. The 90 per cent. target is not fanciful. The registrar is keen to establish a figure of 11 per cent. on which he can work for administrative expenses.
The European Commission has submitted a draft directive on rental and lending rights. That was submitted in January 1991 and advocates recognition in each member state of the right of authors to remuneration for the public lending of their books. At present the United Kingdom has a reciprocal public lending arrangement only with Germany. However, there was much opposition to the lending right provisions of the draft directive. As a result, a compromise has been agreed by the member states, allowing countries to continue to give priority to the cultural objectives of their national schemes and to exclude certain types of library institution from PLR calculations. Therefore, the principle of subsidiarity applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) objected to the principle of PLR. I assure him that 16 civil servants means 16: there are no part-time officials. There is one committee, the excellent Public Lending Right

Advisory Committee, which has nine members who work extremely hard on behalf of us all. There is a £1 minimum limit and a £6,000 upper limit, and money for those who qualify above that figure is redistributed. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) still finds that a fallacious principle. I shall clearly not convince him otherwise, and I am ever mindful of the cocoa of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester.
It is important to recompense authors in this way. The sale of one book to a public library ensures that many readers will take advantage of that authorship. I appreciate that those readers might have purchased copies of the book if the library service had not provided it. There are other examples of regular payments for the product of a person's mind. For example, there are many patent payments. The principle of copyright is designed to assist in that area.
The scheme depends on computers, and the computer has been the cause of a considerable increase in this year's administrative expenses. An advisory group includes representatives from the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and the Cabinet Office internal audit. A contract was awarded to BIS Information Systems to replace the computer. That was worth £580,000 and accounts for a great deal of the amount to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich referred. Staged payments for the contract are being made on the successful completion of each phase. The design was completed in March 1992 and testing began in May last year. The old and new systems have been running in parallel. One of the benefits of the new system will be additional storage capacity.
Public libraries added 11 million books to their stock in 1990–91. Many public libraries have increased book expenditure in real terms over the past decade, and for the first time in a decade, borrowing last year was up. Book issues are increasing, especially in the shire counties—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I looked at the monitor before I took the Chair and I noticed that my predecessor brought the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to order. The Minister is straying down the same road and I urge him to return to the subject under debate.

Mr. Key: I am a lost sheep in this argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for bringing me back to order. I sought to give the hon. Member for Cynon Valley the courtesy of a reply, but perhaps I should speak to her elsewhere to reassure her and allay her fears.
The expectations of the public in this respect have risen and, through our recognition of the public lending right, we have seen that libraries are not just repositories of our uniquely rich heritage but resource centres for our communities, important to the quality of our lives. It is a modest mark of our gratitude to those with gifts and skills of writing that we make this increase to the public lending right and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

PETITIONS

Excavation (Thurrock)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to present to the House a petition by County Councillor Reg Lee, Margie Roberts and other residents of Aveley in my constituency of Thurrock, and other men and women from Essex, who are concerned for the protection and promotion of the environment and who consider that, without the intervention of this place, permission shall be granted to the company Greenways to excavate and fill Aveley No. 3 pit which is situated on the Romford road in Essex with a consequential blight on properties, hazards from increased lorry movement and pollution of the soil and atmosphere—work which they would have to endure for a further 17 years.
Wherefore, your petitioners—
who exceed 3,500—
pray that your honourable House shall seek to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to exercise his power to determine this planning application following an independent public inquiry where the views and objections of the petitioners can be heard and examined by an independent Inspector appointed for this purpose, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Peter Snape: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Railway Development Society, signed by no fewer than 18,753 members of the public, against the privatisation of British Rail. The petitioners believe that, far from solving British Rail's problems, privatisation will add to them, and that the railway industry needs investment, not dismemberment.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House: Will abandon the ill-conceived British Rail privatisation proposals and embark urgently upon a properly funded investment programme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table

Castle Fraser, Grampian

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This debate, which I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the House, was triggered by the decision of the Castle Fraser estate in my constituency in January to serve eviction notices on 16 tenants to secure vacant possession for the break-up and sale of the estate.
Before the letters went out to the tenants, they were called together and told that they would be receiving this notice because it had proved impossible to sell the estate as a going concern as they had been told should have been possible.
At the time, they were not told of their rights that, for example, a sheriff court order would be required before they were evicted; nor were they given any idea that there could be flexibility in the notice that they had been given. In some cases, all they were told was they had to be out of their homes and would lose their jobs at four weeks' notice.
As can be imagined, that caused a furore in the area. In Gordon district in the past two years, the number of tenants who have gone on to the housing list because tied accommodation was no longer available was 21 and 39 respectively, so 16 coming in one go from one estate was a high proportion of the total that might be expected in any one year.
I contacted the factor of the estate to try to persuade him to be more flexible, and he told me that he recognised that he would have to go through the sheriff court and that he had not instigated that procedure. Nevertheless, he had not told the tenants that, and they thought that the letters were legal notices that they were bound to obey.
It also turned out that the claim that there had been no bids that could have kept the estate together or continued the employment and tenancy of the tenants was not true; there were bids for substantial parts of the estate which would have maintained some of the employment and some of the tenancies. That outcome is still possible.
On the good side, no sheriff court action has been taken. I understand that negotiations are still in hand to complete the sale, and it is possible that some tenants may be retained. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that was not made apparent at the time notice was given, because a great deal of heartache and anxiety could have been avoided. When I met the tenants a couple of days after they received that notification, they were shaken, shocked and in many ways disillusioned with their treatment.
One sad aspect is that Castle Fraser was in many ways a model, well run estate. The tenants were well treated and the houses well maintained. In that context, the termination of the tenants' employment and the summary notice that they were required to leave was a bigger shock than otherwise might have been the case.
The case highlights a number of important issues. It shows that the present law relating to tied tenancies in Scotland is unsatisfactory. I make it clear that I do not oppose the principle of tied housing, for I recognise its essential role in rural areas. Tied housing could be the subject of a debate, but I do not want to embark upon one at this stage.
People who work on the land need to live close to their jobs, and tied housing is one means of bringing that about. The question is not whether we should get rid of tied housing—I do not think we should, and I do not want to promote or to support legislation to that effect. What matters is managing the transition in a humane and sensible way that gives the tenant fair treatment and does not impose an untoward burden on already hard-pressed local authorities.
The trustees of the Castle Fraser estate took advantage of the law as it stands and the local authority's good will to deposit a problem on the public sector, to maximise the sale value on the break-up of the estate. They should not have been allowed to do that. I am not suggesting that the trustees did anything wrong or illegal, but that we should look to the law as it stands.
I do not believe that the trustees would have taken that action if they had not taken the view that they could dump the problem on the local authority to resolve. Any local authority would find 16 tenants suddenly deposited on its homeless list a problem. My local authority of Gordon has more problems than most in that respect.
There should be a requirement in law for the landowner to observe a court process to recover his property—not just the sheriff court requirement, but a specific claim to demonstrate a good reason for requiring vacant possession. A good reason would be that he needed the house for land management or agricultural purposes; that he needed it for himself or his family, which would be a reasonable entitlement; or that the tenant had caused problems, broken an agreement, or presented a nuisance.
The action should not become effective until the tenant had been adequately rehoused. That would remove the deep anxiety caused to tenants seeing an eviction date looming and not knowing where they were to live. Such changes would not undermine the owner's fundamental right to recover his property, but would prevent an owner from exploiting the situation simply to secure vacant possession to maximise his return or profit from the property's sale. It would remove from tenants the worry of being turfed out into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and provide them with the knowledge that they would not be moved until they had been adequately rehoused.
When notice is served, there should also be a requirement to notify the tenant—in writing if possible—of his or her rights. It is astonishing that tenants can be given notice, as they were at Castle Fraser, without any indication that they had the right to await a court order. Tenants should be able to seek advice, perhaps from the local authority officer responsible for the homeless. The local authority and I gave the Castle Fraser tenants the information they required, but two or three days after they were given notice. I regret that the estate's factor gave them no such indication until pressed to do so. I do not believe that any tenant should be faced with that kind of shock, and I do not believe that local authorities should be left to cope with the situation without assistance.
Gordon district is the fastest growing community in Britain—apart from Milton Keynes, which has the benefit of a development corporation to deal with its housing problems. The council has an excellent record of housing management: a very high proportion of houses—approaching 30 per cent., I believe—have been sold. Despite that, or perhaps partly because of it, we have seen increasing homelessness and a lengthening waiting list.
According to the most recent figures, 2,029 people were on the waiting list on 4 March. Between 1 April last year and 28 February this year, 435 homelessness applications were received; by the end of January, 290 had been accepted as priorities. It is estimated that, between the middle of this year and the middle of 1998, 2,433 new houses will be required in Gordon to meet the projected increase in the population.
At present, the council estimates that 1,183 houses are likely to be built, of which precisely three will be local authority houses. Currently, no local authority houses are being built anywhere in Gordon district. I must say that. I find that astonishing. Because of keen demand, the price of houses in Gordon is generally high. The real shortfall in the community is of affordable houses to rent and low-price starts: whenever such houses become available, they are snapped up, leaving a waiting list that is still rising.
Let me say in parenthesis to certain people in Gordon district that tearing up the local plan and allowing people planning permission to build in every field in the area does not meet the need of affordable houses to rent.
The council has shown itself to be flexible. It has taken up every initiative presented by the Government and the Housing Corporation, and has given a lead in exploring every possibility of co-operation, joint ownership and different forms of tenure. There is no ideological conflict between Gordon district and the Government; there is simply a plea for resources.
People become very angry about those who are put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They are not concerned only about the hardship; the accommodation is often good, although it does not constitute a satisfactory home from which children can set off to school and to which they can return. Gordon district estimates that it will cost it a quarter of a million pounds in the current financial year, and it has already spent £120,000. That is not a sensible use of public money, but the council has been forced into it.
A strategic agreement has just been signed with Scottish Homes, which I understand is likely to bring in more than £20 million and will provide between 400 and 500 homes over the next three to five years. Of course I welcome that; but that number of houses will not contain, let alone reduce, the waiting list. Welcome though they are, the houses are not in proportion to the problem we face in the north-east of Scotland.
I see that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is in the Chamber. Let me point out that the problem is not confined to Gordon district. I have been in touch with Aberdeen city council, which tells me that the figures peaked in 1987, with 2,000 people on the homeless list; the most recent figure is 1,606. Only 57 council houses are being built throughout the city, against a waiting list of 4,400 and a transfer list of 6,200. The Minister must realise that the problem is very large, and getting larger every year. At present, we are not doing nearly enough to deal with it.
The population expansion in Gordon and in the north-east of Scotland has been consistent for almost 20 years. It is not just a matter of oil and gas people moving into the area. It has changed the profile of the population. It has ensured that we have a younger mix, with a growing number of households in relation to total population. That is increasing the pressure on the housing authorities arid established businesses outside the oil and gas sector.
We are making a great contribution to national resources and national wealth, and I think that we are entitled to be given assistance to deal with our problems. We do not operate on a low-rent basis. Houses are well maintained and well funded, but we cannot provide something with nothing. That is, fundamentally, what I believe the Government have got to take on board.
The Government should now accept that the particular circumstances of the Castle Fraser debacle bring home the need for a radical rethink of housing policy in the north-east of Scotland, especially in rural areas. I believe that the Government should give serious consideration to changing the law, to giving more security to tenants in tied accommodation and to providing proper resources to meet the needs, so as to enable the local authorities to deal with real homelessness problems and the hidden homelessness of people on waiting lists who are unable to buy.
The local authorities are perfectly willing to co-operate with the Government on a variety of different terms of tenure and different ways of solving the problems. There are no ideological problems, but to date I have to say that, despite their expressions of good will, the reality is that the Government have not acknowledged the scale of the problem that arises out of our economic success in the north-east of Scotland. As a consequence, we see genuine, individual hardship for people who are unable to get adequate housing.
We also see a constraint upon the economic development that is so beneficial not just to our own community but to the economy of Scotland and the economy of the United Kingdom. I urge the Minister to take on board the fact that the housing problems of the north-east of Scotland need a fundamental reappraisal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who has done a service to his constituents by raising this subject.
I have no objection whatever to Gordon district council going to Scottish Homes regarding the allocation of £20 million to further the strategic agreement that it has entered into with the district council, if it feels that an adjustment is urgently needed to deal with these problems. It therefore follows that it may be possible for the district council to follow up with the Scottish Landowners Federation the £3.3 million that has been allocated for bringing empty houses, some of them in Grampian, back into use.
I shall of course take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the needs of a growing population, not only in his constituency but in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who is here tonight. These matters will be taken into account before the final allocations are made.
May I express my sympathy for those men and women who face the possibility of losing their homes when they are made redundant? Although the Scottish Office has no powers to intervene, I have asked officials to contact Gordon district council to establish the facts and see how it can assist. Also, with the agreement of Countess Iveagh,

my officials have spoken to the Castle Fraser factor and solicitor, who has supplied further information on the current position. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I set out briefly what we understand to be the situation.
The Castle Fraser estate is owned by a trust, which for family reasons decided in 1991 to sell the estate. The argument runs as follows. The late Major Smiley had set standards for the estate which required staffing levels substantially above those required for an estate on commercial lines. It was therefore recognised that any new owner might not keep the present staff complement. This would apply whether or not the estate was sold as a whole, or in a number of lots. In fact, the estate was advertised for sale either as a whole, or in eight lots. As the seller concluded that no satisfactory offer was received for the whole estate, it is now being sold in eight lots. Many of these will be sold to farmers, who will require the tied houses for themselves and their families.
There are 13 families and 16 employees affected by the sale—not 16 families as suggested in press reports. I have been informed by the estate that the Iveagh family has been concerned about the future of these employees and that they are receiving substantial redundancy payments. The redundancy notices have included a formal notice that the tenants' right to occupy these houses ceased with their employment. However, the estate has not taken any action to evict the tenants. It has also negotiated with the new owners to obtain agreement to be flexible about the timing of action to take possession of tied houses, to give the tenants additional time to find alternative accommodation.
I understand that there has been some progress. The estate itself has provided accommodation for two families, and Gordon district has rehoused a single man. I believe that four more families have found alternative accommodation. I hope that more families will be able to find other homes and jobs, in some cases through reemployment by the new owners. Here again, the Scotish Office has no direct powers to intervene, but I hope that both old and new owners will be sensitive to the employment needs of those affected, and I trust that special consideration will be given to the possibility of re-employing those workers. I also understand that the estate has given guarantees of accommodation to six recently retired employees.
As for the current legal position, the hon. Member is aware that tied tenancies are part of contracts of employment. As such, they fall outside the scope of the law of landlord and tenant. All employees will have been made aware of the conditions attached to the tied tenancies when they accepted employment, but I appreciate that the changes of ownership are both sudden and difficult for all concerned.
I must emphasise that tied tenants cannot be evicted without a court order. For Castle Fraser tied tenants who are agricultural workers, under section 24 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, the sheriff can suspend a court order for possession in certain circumstances—for example, in response to representations if the actions of the owner are considered to be unreasonable or would cause hardship to the individuals concerned. I consider that there is a strong moral obligation, which should be accepted by the estate owners in such cases, to allow a satisfactory time for the estate employees to relocate themselves and their families. It is a sign of responsible land ownership that, when such


sales take place, there is a sensible period of transition to enable the former estate employees and their families to adjust to the new conditions.
The hon. Member will be aware that English legislation is not identical to that in Scotland. He has referred in the past to the legislation in England on security of tenure in so far as it affects tied tenants who are agricultural workers. Unfortunately, such legislation would not help estate employees, who do not qualify as agricultural workers. Introducing such legislation in Scotland would be complex, and could have implications for other aspects of Scots law, including agricultural law. However, I have decided to ask the Scottish Law Commission to examine the question of tied tenancies and to give me its views in due course. I trust that that will reassure the hon. Member that I am treating his remarks with great concern.
I have seen a copy of the letter to the hon. Member from the Scottish Landowners Federation. I note that discussions involving the Rural Forum and others are under way about the problems caused by tied tenancies. I understand that those are continuing, and it would be premature for me to comment on the proposals at this stage. I would naturally support any action which, while recognising the benefits of tied tenancies, gave proper emphasis to the interests of tenants. But I would make two points.
First, although the SLF claims that the real problem is a lack of alternative housing, as I have already said, we are taking vigorous action to improve the supply of rural housing. Secondly, I note the SLF's concern about the ineffective working of the English Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee, which decides whether repossession of a tied house is justified on grounds of agricultural necessity. That justifies my caution about the introduction of such an approach in Scotland.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Briefly, as I have a lot of ground to cover.

Mr. Bruce: May I explain that the Scottish Landowners Federation says that the reason why the advisory committee is not working is the shortage of suitable accommodation in the relevant areas—so the two aspects are linked.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are working hard to ensure that there is more accommodation, and Scottish Homes' rural housing strategy is geared to achieving that end, by housing associations providing affordable homes for rent, and grants for rent and ownership—GRO— funding, to provide low-cost home ownership or housing for rent.
Rural home ownership grants are also available to individuals in remote areas to enable them to build their own homes. The target for 1992–93 is to provide 1,000 new or improved units in rural areas. More than 80 per cent. of that target has already been achieved, and 100 per cent. is forecast by 31 March. That will be a remarkable achievement. But even more importantly, Scottish Homes plans to provide 1,600 homes for rent or sale in rural areas in 1993–94, an increase of 60 per cent. over this year's target. That includes 100 grants for local people to build their own homes.
Considerable resources are of course needed to support such ambitious plans. We have increased Scottish Homes'

overall programme to £327 million for 1993–94, an increase of 9 per cent. on the original plans for this year. Rural areas are set to benefit to an even greater extent from the additional resources. The programme for 1992–93 includes around £47 million for expenditure in rural areas. The programme for 1993–94 will include more than £55 million for expenditure in rural areas—an increase of almost 22 per cent., which is a substantial step forward.
As well as providing large numbers of affordable homes, Scottish Homes is also promoting innovative responses to the special needs of rural areas. The 10 rural demonstration areas, set up as part of its rural housing strategy, cover a wide range of areas and initiatives.
Scottish Homes is also working with other key agencies in rural areas, in particular with local authorities. Scottish Homes has now signed strategic investment agreements with more than 30 local authorities, many of which cover rural areas. I was very pleased to hear that Scottish Homes and Gordon district council recently signed the agreement which allows for a five-year investment of around £20 million. This will provide around 450 new or improved units of mixed house type, as the hon. Member mentioned.
One project of note which may assist in that connection is the £1.7 million housing development for first-time buyers at Pitmedden, through a partnership between Scottish Homes, Stewart Milne Construction and Gordon district council. The 42 homes will primarily be targeted at Gordon district council's tenants and people on the council's waiting list, with particular attention to those on low incomes. The first houses are scheduled for completion this summer, which might be a relevant timetable in the context of this debate. Such schemes have a double benefit; they provide not only homes for those on low incomes, which is important for the economic prosperity of the area, but also free district council accommodation, which in turn helps it to tackle homelessness.
While on the subject of local authorities, 1 should also note that rural authorities receive a greater share of the housing revenue account resources available, compared with the scale of their housing stock. In 1993–94, rural authorities with just over 23 per cent. of the council housing stock will receive 25.2 per cent.—more than £97 million out of the provisional HRA allocations. Rural authorities with just 29 per cent. of the Scottish population will receive 34.4 per cent., nearly £37 million of the national non-HRA allocations available for assistance to the private housing sector for 1993–94. Rural local authorities also have a relative advantage in the distribution of housing support grant.
I might add that, through Scottish Homes, we have worked for example with the Scottish Landowners Federation in Grampian, Tayside and Fife to help bring empty properties in rural areas back into use. Scottish Homes is also working with the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence on similar initiatives.
Those initiatives are some of the many carried out using an additional allocation of £3.3 million, which I earmarked specifically just before the election, in this financial year, to bring empty properties back into use. They also include projects to bring empty upper-floor town centre property back into use. In total, those projects will bring into, or retain for, use almost 200 properties. That is a matter that the district council might like to follow up with the Scottish Landowners Federation, in case there might be relevant possibilities in that area.
On the question of homelessness, tied tenants have exactly the same rights to local authority help under the homelessness legislation as anyone else. The kind of help that housing authority had a duty to provide would depend on individual circumstances, but, at a minimum, would include advice and assistance in finding alternative accommodation. This need not be in a council house. For example, an authority may have nomination rights to housing association tenancies. Indeed, there are a number in Lang Stane, and Castlehill. I do not know whether there are any vacant houses, but nomination rights do exist. As I have said, the district council is free to discuss these matters in depth with Scottish Homes.
Alternatively, the accommodation could be permanent, although, if this is not immediately available, the authority should ensure that temporary accommodation is available over the interim period. I understand that the local housing authority—Gordon district council—is keeping itself informed of developments on the Castle Fraser estate. It is to be commended for doing so.
I announced recently that Gordon district would receive an extra allocation of £240,000 in 1992–93 for tackling homelessness. This will enable the authority to reduce the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Gordon district has also been given a substantial

provisional allocation of more than £7.025 million for 1993–94, which can be used to aid the homeless if this is a local priority. It is possible that some of those affected by the changes will benefit from this increasing scale of investment in rural areas by Scottish Homes.
If the shortfall in supply can be overcome, the necessity for employees to accept tied housing at the start of an employment contract can be reduced over time. There may, however, continue to be a supply problem in some remote areas, where estate management requires the worker or workers to be close at hand. In those special cases, where there has been a satisfactory working relationship over many years, it is extremely important that the good will of estate workers and their families be actively conserved by the owners of the estates themselves. That is very much in their own interests if the viability of these estates is to be maintained in practice.
Again I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for rendering a service to his constituents. I hope that I have been able to indicate some of the possible ways forward. If the problem is not solved, the hon. Gentleman may come and have a discussion with me, and we shall see what can be done at that stage. In any case, I hope that these matters will be resolved before long.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.